No Big Bang

[Being1]

There was no Big Bang. Don't you think the most logical, intelligent question to ask about the Big Bang would be, 'What was the cause of the bang? The bang was an effect. What created it?

The observed expansion of the universe is not the after effect of an almighty bang. It is the growth, the evolutionary growth.

[QED]

.

The Big Bang is an 'old' scientific theory which has been shown to be inadequate in the last 30 years. It is more proper to talk in terms of Inflation theory at the present time. Inflation theory better captures the properties of the universe as we see them and provides solutions to inconsistencies found in BB theory. But it still describes our place in an expanding universe. What assumption are you questioning? It might be solved by inflation...

Thankyou QED, I know very little about this theory however the sound of it sits far better with my own view. Is it possible for you to give me a brief overview, or guide me to a site that may?

I couldn't find anything particularly fancy online, although this paper seems like it might be reasonable (I haven't read it all though!). I can however highly recommend Brian
Greene's latest paperback: The Fabric of the Cosmos .

[Scrotum]

There was no Big Bang. Don't you think the most logical, intelligent question to ask about the Big Bang would be, 'What was the cause of the bang? The bang was an effect. What created it?

The observed expansion of the universe is not the after effect of an almighty bang. It is the growth, the evolutionary growth.

Mr Harrison, i have a question which i would be very happy if you could answer (regarding your comments): What do you base your remark about "There was no Big Bang" on ?


This is a scientific theory, whatever it is correct or not is not the issue, nor do i care, but i presume you have a logical basis for why you discard it. (Like some obvious evidence for its fault).


Looking forward to hear your answer.

[Being1]

Mr Harrison, i have a question which i would be very happy if you could answer (regarding your comments): What do you base your remark about "There was no Big Bang" on ?


This is a scientific theory, whatever it is correct or not is not the issue, nor do i care, but i presume you have a logical basis for why you discard it. (Like some obvious evidence for its fault).


Looking forward to hear your answer.

I apologise for the delay in responding to your post, I have been out of town.

I like your question…

Yes, it is correct, I do have a logical basis for my dismissal of the Big Bang Theory, and that is because it does not make sense to me.

My view is that the emergence and development of the universe is utterly logical... and simple. It is the result of the workings of one force, and one force only. Understanding this force is what I see to be, and define as, the elusive Theory of Everything (TOE).

TOE suggests to me that all apparently disparate forces must come together in, or as, a singularity - the one unified truth that explains all things. This singularity can only be the reality behind what is perceived by science to be the result of a Big Bang. But as QED pointed out, the theory is a bit old, and now Inflation Theory is probably a much better explanation of the apparent situation.

The Theory of Everything, or Unified Field Theory, can never be discovered or proven through studying the matter alone - no matter how far and deep we probe into the depths and wonders of this matter with either telescope or microscope - because it is only ever one half of the whole equation.

Everything we study and wonder about is always the result of something happening, otherwise it cannot be there for us to observe. The other half of the equation is to question what it is that is doing the observing, and then it may be possible to see a relationship between, and the impact the observer has upon that which he observes.

From this, things begin to make sense in my experience. However I cannot prove any of it to you. You can only ever prove it to yourself.

[Cathar1950]

Sender wrote:

another uninformed response. A phone call cost more than a quarter.

Sorry but my local tavern has a pay phone that only costs a quarter. They just put it in. Please check your facts next time.

Yes very good Lotan. I always wonder where in the bible God created the world from nothing. The myths point to just the opposite.
Sender wrote:

And those key words spoken around the water cooler of their day, scientist realized how to get around the Big Bang problem...and thus the theory of evolution began.

I see you never hung out at the water cooler with the guys. Why does that not surprise me?
Glee wrote:

It might be more of a security blanket kinda thing, im not sure. I guess it's more a minimalist interpretation with God doing not a lot, but making sure good people go to heaven, whilst not ignoring the vast amount of scientific literature. Something nice and light to believe in that doesn't have many constraints, with some nice moral guides along the way.

I have a brother just like that maybe a little more fundamentalist even but loves science physics and has a wonderful mind we argue all the time He has all kinds of questions but he does not question science based of data and facts and experimentation. There is like two of him I think. Love him to pices.
Theory of Everything , Inflation theory, Big Bang and even string theory all are looking at data and trying to find a story that fits using science that is every evolving and changing.. I even read this book called the God particle really interesting history of physics from an experimental physicist .

[QED]

I have a brother just like that maybe a little more fundamentalist even but loves science physics and has a wonderful mind we argue all the time He has all kinds of questions but he does not question science based of data and facts and experimentation. There is like two of him I think. Love him to pices.
Theory of Everything , Inflation theory, Big Bang and even string theory all are looking at data and trying to find a story that fits using science that is every evolving and changing.. I even read this book called the God particle really interesting history of physics from an experimental physicist .

Wonderful What I feel ought to stand out to anyone of such reading is the evident dynamic nature of the cosmos. While the BB clearly corresponds to the creation 'event' in the theistic mind, the stories of the bible anchor this to a single point in time when everything was put in place by God's hand. But physics clearly shows how the universe has (dare I say) evolved from high to low density and temperature. The data for this and the principles of stellar formation, nucleosynthesis etc. undeniably points to a gradual unfolding of greater levels of complexity -- the most complex of which is currently life. The knowledge of how heavier elements are created in the stellar furnaces alone puts life in a very definite place on the timeline of the world.

Having got this picture of a dynamic but stately progression I can't understand how anyone could imagine the creation stories of the OT as bearing any similarity other than a coincidental superficiality.

[Cathar1950]

Hell no they are not the same and have different purposes QED. I agree with you on this. I really don't care how it turns out but I like to know as much about it as I can. I don't want to be sold snake oil. If you now what I mean.