The BIG bang

[VermilionUK]

I've often found myself asked the question "so how did something come from nothing?"
I would usually answer "ok, so how did god come from nothing?"

So, I don't consider myself educated on this matter of the big bang or the beginning of the universe, but I've read across some points regarding chaos and particles spontaneuosly coming in and out of existence - and as such would like some dialogue regarding the first stages of the big bang.

Or, in simple terms:
Explain the chaos theory

Explain evidence behind it (yes, I know its only a "theory" and as such, probably lacks solid evidence - but so does God, yet theists cling to that)

Explain other possible/probable causes to the universe (if indeed it had a "cause")


Now, before we get "ha! You can't explain it - therefore God exists", we must also face the fact that there is no evidence of a creator (as far as I know). And of course, if the simple answer is "we don't know what happened" then it gives us no reason to assume it was some divine being.

[McCulloch]

I would just like to inject a few point about the Big Bang theory.

1) It asserts that there is a center of our universe.

No it does not. It asserts that space itself is expanding and has been since the beginning. Just as an expanding circle has not endpoint, an expanding universe in three dimensions has no center.

2) It means that we are either still expanding or compressing.

Only evidence of expansion has been observed or accounted for in theory.

3) Why do we state the Big Bang at T=0 instead of T= - to .

If the Big Bang occurred, then the point of time that it did occur would be a logical milestone for the measurement of time, just as absolute zero is a great reference point for the measurement of temperature.

4) Doesn't the Big Bang theory indorse a continuous cycle of destruction and creation over billions of years?

No, it neither requires it nor rules it out.

[xcept]

The problem with the big bang is energy. As in E=mc2... what contains energy? How is energy contained? It isn't by natural means. What does it?

[McCulloch]

The problem with the big bang is energy. As in E=mc2... what contains energy? How is energy contained? It isn't by natural means. What does it?

I don't understand the question.

[nygreenguy]

The problem with the big bang is energy. As in E=mc2... what contains energy? How is energy contained? It isn't by natural means. What does it?

Its called mass. Its the 'm' in the equation. Its pretty tough to miss.

[xcept]

The problem with the big bang is energy. As in E=mc2... what contains energy? How is energy contained? It isn't by natural means. What does it?

Its called mass. Its the 'm' in the equation. Its pretty tough to miss.

yes that could possibly make sense, except energy isn't contained prior to matter being formed and energy isn't contained now by anything explainable. Energy can pass through matter and beyond.

what slowed it down. there is nothing in space to drag or delay energy. heres something interesting ive found online.
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community cosmologystatement.org(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004) The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetica that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases something the big bang has failed to do Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding...

And its signed by many scientists with credibility. I would say almost peer reviewed because of it.

[T-mash]

The problem with the big bang is energy. As in E=mc2... what contains energy? How is energy contained? It isn't by natural means. What does it?

Its called mass. Its the 'm' in the equation. Its pretty tough to miss.

yes that could possibly make sense, except energy isn't contained prior to matter being formed and energy isn't contained now by anything explainable. Energy can pass through matter and beyond.

what slowed it down. there is nothing in space to drag or delay energy. heres something interesting ive found online.
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community cosmologystatement.org(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004) The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetica that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases something the big bang has failed to do Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding...

And its signed by many scientists with credibility. I would say almost peer reviewed because of it.

Lol, did we whip you enough in biology that you now turned to physics?

Watch this please:

We know the big bang happened. We can even observe it.

[McCulloch]

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community cosmologystatement.org

And its signed by many scientists with credibility. I would say almost peer reviewed because of it.

Clicked on a few of the links:
Peter J Carroll, Psychonaut Institute, UK Links to

• SACRED GEOMETRY.
• MAGICAL THEORY
• WIZARDS AGAINST TYRANNY.
• STARSHIPS
• Ur"Chaos Theory.

Tom Van Flandern, Meta Research, USA Links to

• 2006/05/01 The universal speed limit is repealed. See why in "A primer on Lorentzian relativity".
• Artificial Structures on Mars

I cannot easily see how this might be mistaken for peer review.

[xcept]

The problem with the big bang is energy. As in E=mc2... what contains energy? How is energy contained? It isn't by natural means. What does it?

Its called mass. Its the 'm' in the equation. Its pretty tough to miss.

yes that could possibly make sense, except energy isn't contained prior to matter being formed and energy isn't contained now by anything explainable. Energy can pass through matter and beyond.

what slowed it down. there is nothing in space to drag or delay energy. heres something interesting ive found online.
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community cosmologystatement.org(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004) The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetica that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases something the big bang has failed to do Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding...

And its signed by many scientists with credibility. I would say almost peer reviewed because of it.

Lol, did we whip you enough in biology that you now turned to physics?

Watch this please:

We know the big bang happened. We can even observe it.

Dubya tee eff.... are you effing SERIOUS???? Lol that's what you believe? Just hilarious. Your left hand is from stardust from one star and your right hand is from stardust from another star? And no, nothing is observed that they spoke about. Its supposed billions of years. Nothing was observed. Red shifts are not accurate at all. Those dorks on that video hate religion to their very core. They have a serious problem with religion, or more precisely christianity and Christ. I watched enough it it to have a good laugh. I showed my wife the part about the stardust and she was like... they're insane. And I'm like yeah I know. Look, I could go to ICR.ORG and find rebutals for every canned comment they made in that video. But then again so could you. So I will save you the effort and tell you that common sense dictates that your experts are not experts but merely promoters and attention whores.

[T-mash]

Dubya tee eff.... are you effing SERIOUS???? Lol that's what you believe? Just hilarious. Your left hand is from stardust from one star and your right hand is from stardust from another star?

Yup. Do you even know what stardust is?

And no, nothing is observed that they spoke about.

That's hilarious for an hour talk about everything that they have observed in physics and then posting nothing was observed...

Its supposed billions of years. Nothing was observed.

If you see the light of a star you already observe billion of years ago (in some cases)

Red shifts are not accurate at all.

Do you know what a redshift is?

Those dorks on that video hate religion to their very core. They have a serious problem with religion, or more precisely christianity and Christ.

Of course they do. These people try to educate the masses, but unfortunately fairy tales and religion appeals to the dumb masses more than science. As this video has demonstrated here is that even if you put a funny guy that tries to explain everything as easy as he possibly could it still goes over the head of 'some people' that instead just discard all the evidence that we do have unless it's convenient to them.

I watched enough it it to have a good laugh. I showed my wife the part about the stardust and she was like... they're insane. And I'm like yeah I know.

The same kind of insanity that brought you your PC.

Look, I could go to ICR.ORG and find rebutals for every canned comment they made in that video. But then again so could you. So I will save you the effort and tell you that common sense dictates that your experts are not experts but merely promoters and attention whores.

And can you got to a scientific department and do the same? Noooooo
But let's see:
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/galaxy_worldbook.html
Uses redshift. Those dummies at NASA...

Hmm every site I find uses it.. I'll just google your claim instead: "Red shifts are not accurate".

It has one hit.... one. Want to know which? Your comment

[xcept]

The problem with the big bang is energy. As in E=mc2... what contains energy? How is energy contained? It isn't by natural means. What does it?

Its called mass. Its the 'm' in the equation. Its pretty tough to miss.

yes that could possibly make sense, except energy isn't contained prior to matter being formed and energy isn't contained now by anything explainable. Energy can pass through matter and beyond.

what slowed it down. there is nothing in space to drag or delay energy. heres something interesting ive found online.
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community cosmologystatement.org(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004) The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetica that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases something the big bang has failed to do Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding...

And its signed by many scientists with credibility. I would say almost peer reviewed because of it.

Lol, did we whip you enough in biology that you now turned to physics?

Watch this please:

We know the big bang happened. We can even observe it.

Ha ha its nice to have fans.... thanks!