Problems with the Big Bang theory

Well, we aren't talking about 'anything' here are we?And you neglected to comment on the fact that the Big Bang doesn't propose the universe came from nothing. The Big Bang simply says that the something we have now used to be much hotter and denser. Relativity gets messy at this point because what we understand to be space and time stop making sense. We turn to quantum weirdness at this point - but as to where this hot dense something came from - the scientific jury has yet to be presented with the full body of evidence...the trial continues.Thus, the Big Bang does not say anything materialize[s] out of nothing. It says that {something} materialized out of {something else}We aren't precisely sure on the something, but it is basically everything we know of, plus a whole lot more. The {something else} may be explainable in m-theory. Or not. Who knows?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Oh, come now. Why is it ridiculous? It's certainly no more ridiculous than some big dude thinking one day, "Gee. I think I'm going to create a universe. Maybe put some people in it. And I'll make it perfect, except for a tree that they sure has hell better not eat from!"

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

Hello, DB! Up above you asked: Dr Hubble showed the first major bits about 80 years ago now - the farther away that a galaxy looks to be - from its size and apparent brightness, for instance - the faster it's receding from us. Then we have the huge amount of data from COBE, BOOMERanG, WMAP, and other such programs measuring details of the cosmic microwave background - which wouldn't be there to measure absent a Big Bang. And we have measurements of the elemental abundances in space - as predicted to arise from the Big Bang.There's evidence in great abundance.

You're over simplifying it. I challenge you to read objectively the entire bible. Follow the threads of God's Love for his people that follow all the way through it. He's more than just a "dude"

All this doesn't do anything at all to prove that the matter that was there to "bang big" in the first place came into existence all by itself. Just because there are remnants of a big bang, doesn't mean the matter that banged wasn't created.

Especially the first half of Joshua. And I Samuel about mice and emerods. Without laughing or throwing up.But this is a science thread, DB, and preaching here is against the rules you agreed to when you signed up.

What are you talking about? This is a thread about the Big Bang. The topic has shifted from the Big Bang, which is about how current observations in astronomy and cosmology can be explained by assuming an expansion of a very hot and very dense universe, to how the universe may have began.You have troubles conceptualizing the universe coming from nothing. I don't see why. It seems pretty plausible to me. In fact, the concept of this god that allegedly did the creating is proving pretty difficult one for me.

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

So, please tell me how you conceptualize the universe coming from nothing

Don't respond then. Otherwise you're arguing with me and then we're both guilty.

Of course I mean absolute nothingness. Matter has to originate somewhere. A black hole is not nothingness by the way.

Pretty hard, since allegedly time itself did not exist "before" the universe.I just imagine that the universe just exists. There was a time "before" which there was nothing, not even time itself, and then after this first instant in time there is the universe.(Actually, I would prefer it if there was no "beginning", that time extends infinitely into the past, but I guess I have to accept that findings of science which suggest that there was a "beginning" to time.)

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

And, as others here have said, it doesn't appear to be a contention of physics that "absolute nothingness" was there before the BB - if there was a "before." So you may well be arguing with a phantom.

quote:

---

(Actually, I would prefer it if there was no "beginning", that time extends infinitely into the past, but I guess I have to accept that findings of science which suggest that there was a "beginning" to time.)

---

I like the idea that basically we have a 4d structure we call the universe. The big bang is not he beginning of the universe, just an boundless endpoint in which all directions point toward the future.The big bang cannot be considered the beginning of time just as the north pole cannot be considered the beginning of lines of longitude.It doesn't really make sense to use a temporal verb when referring to the time. Things "begin" in time, but time cannot "begin" unless you are referencing some hypertime.[edit]this isn't really counter to what you said, just an extension. Edited by JustinC, : No reason given.

The Big Bang model says the universe today can be traced back to a state of a quark-gluon-lepton plasma existing about 13.7 billion years into the past from our perspective.It does not and never has said "Nothing exploded creating something".

So where did all that stuff come from that exploded?