Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

We know time and space are inextricably linked (Einstein) and there are experiments that demonstrate this - thus scientists talk about 'space-time'. Since the big bang is believed to be the origin of space, it should also be the origin of space-time.The theory behind this idea is pretty solid - however, it is not necessarily true that it happened this way. Quantum Loop Gravity theory (for example) implies that the universe has always been and merely loops between 'crunches' and 'bangs'. In an infinite cycle. The big bang is not so much an event as a process. We know it happened 'cos we can observe the results of it - but we don't (yet?) know how it started.

Einstein did indeed come up with several theories to that effect. But again, I ask for specific experiments demontrating that they have been proven true. Without you backing up claims with true information, I'm not, and probably never will, believe your assertions.
So far the best I've gotten as far as "proof" is "briliant scientist so-and-so has brilliant theory conserning such-and-such". Not enough. Also, even the things they do prove is only tenuously so. For example, I believe we can all agree that 2+2=4. Those who are more advanced in math then I, however, have told me that it can be 'proven' that 2+2=5, using calculous. I really don't care how people can prove 2+2=5, or how smart they are, or what kind of degrees they have, I'm probably gunna stick with 2+2=4. You see, for me, the best logic is normally the simplest.Joe

If your talking about Gen Relativity the way it explains the excess precession of Mercurys orbit (0.01 degrees per century) has always been considered something of a strong point...

Einstein's theory of relativity is generally considered to have been confirmed when Sir Author Eddington journeyed to Africa in 1919 to observe an eclipse. His experiments confirmed that light was indeed bent by the sun's gravity, and to the degree predicted by Einstein's theory within experimental error. The deviation has been confirmed much more accurately many times in the years since.As joz mentions, relativity also explained the precession of Mercury, which had hitherto been a mystery.Another confirmation is the correct prediction of the difference in the passage of time of clocks in different non-inertial reference frames. Billiance does not relieve a scientist of the responsibilty of supporting his claims with evidence. I hope you'll continue to note when a scientific theory has been insufficiently supported, and within the constraints of time and the message board format I'm sure people here will try to accomodate you.--Percy

Another test is the decay of the orbit of massive stars that are orbiting very close to each other, as gravity waves are emitted. This prediction has been confirmed:

quote:

---

General Relativity implies that some of the stars' orbital energy is being dissipated as gravitational radiation; the theory predicts precisely the observed change in orbit. This system is now considered an important test of General Relativity, for which its discoverers, Hulse and Taylor, were awarded the 1983 Nobel Prize in Physics.

---

Ever hear of the Global Positioning System (GPS)? The fact that it works proves that General Relativity (GR) is true (insofar as anything is ever proven in science).GPS satellites contain extremely accurate clocks ... but they are purposefully manufactured on Earth to be inaccurate, in a very specific way that is predicted by GR. When they go into orbit the clocks change, because they are moving and they are higher in the Earth's gravitational field, and they become as accurate as required.If we didn't apply the GR correction when manufacturing the clocks, they wouldn't be accurate enough when the satellite is orbiting.See General relativity in the global positioning system and Relativity in the Global Positioning System (the latter is very technical).

quote:

---

You see, for me, the best logic is normally the simplest.

---

So you would agree that if a phenomena can be explained by a natural mechanism that is backed up with evidenciary support, this is probably the best explanation. Or is the better explanation a supernatural one where there is no evidenciary support and is at times contradictory to our observations. The simplest seems to be what agrees with our observations instead of the more complicated route of including supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.

Perhaps you could deal with the example I gave. No one has even mentioned it yet.

They're kidding you. Or rather they're doing funny stuff with limits (as I recall) that bears little relation to the discreet entities that we think of as numbers.It's like a kind of mathematical joke.

And scientists, trying to get thier name in the paper would never play with the limits?
Does somebody know more about this calculous process, that I mentioned?
Many different people have told me about it, and all have said it was serious, otherwise I would not have brought it up here. I will, of course, try to get a hold of someone who understands it, and whom I trust. I am, quit simply, as terrible with math as I am spelling, so I'm not totally sure.Joe[This message has been edited by Navy10E, 03-19-2004]

Why would they? As a scientist, trying to fool people for fame spells the immediate end of your career. You're practically blacklisted.Scientists don't play around like that because the consequences are immediate and dire. Just look at the cold fusion guys. Their names became synonymous with "fraud."

Here's some funny about the "2+2=5" business. No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.kfunigraz.ac.at/imawww/pages/humor/twoandtwo.html

Frog and company,
The point is, I don't see this overwelming proof that I keep hearing about. I get, what the genius's think, or a list of numbers that I quite frankly, don't understand. There are some who do understand those numbers, who say the numbers are bull. They have doctorates too, only there are less of them. Do I go with the majority, simply because it is the majority? No. I go with what makes sense to me. The papers rave about this or that being 'proven'. I look, and I really don't see it. I do see that the Big Bang is a "something out of nothing" theory. On top of that, it had to start doing it's thing while there was no time or space. If it be process, or event, it still needs time to operate in to start anything. Sorry guys, it just doesn't compute. Then I hear how space just MUST be curved. Curved? Dang, and all this time I was fooled into thinking a staight line was a straight line. How there is all this anti-matter out there. Where out there? Ummm...well somewhere...we don't know. And how do we know that anti-matter even exsists? It was made in a labratory. Not found. Not naturally occuring. It was manufactured. Somehow, this means that there is an entire universe's worth of this stuff out there? It doesn't make sense.
I can totally see how Mercury's orbit might fit with one (or a couple) or Einstein's theories. But remember, there was a day, when all of the information we had was consistant with the model of the sun revolving around the earth. After these thousand of years of men learning about our universe, we have yet to find that magic data, that rends the Creation account as obsolete.
Before I end this, I want to say, that Einstien, Newton, Faraday, Kepler, etc. These men were amazingly brilliant. I would wet my pants if were to talk to any one of them. But when it comes down to it, where the proverbial rubber meets the road, I have to side with what makes sense. Not with a list of numbers. Not with the papers. Not even with people who are so much smarter then me, that they would have trouble stooping low enought to read what I'm writting here. And not with you all, most of whom are smarter and more learned then little I.
Science has it's place. Science is good. But I think that the scientific community has gotten carried away with it's importence. Remember when science was convinced that the earth was the center of the universe? Many of those were brilliant scientists. Too much blind trust in a good thing leads to too little accountablity. I could be wrong about everything I've written here. But at least I understand my own limits. I can only think about that which I understand. Everything that I understand, points me back at Creation.Thanks
Joe

Haha! Good stuff.-Joe

I don't understand why you think the universe is obligated to operate in a way that makes sense to you.