The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

lost-apathy writes:How do you think Darwin came up with the theory of evolution? Philosophy of course. When something cannot be observed you use philosophy to understand it and come up with a hypothesis.

sidelined writes:I will do a better job of reading the preceding posts and knowing the topic.

lost-apathy writes: It's kind of like how i want to become a famous musician. I tell myself i know I will someday and if i just pursue what I want, I will get it.

lost-apathy writes: I am actually going to start college soon, and am actually wondering what major to pursue.

lost-apathy writes:I am not very knowledgable about relativity, but I doubt anyone here on the forums knows the math to general relativity making us all somewhat ignorant to the topic.

lost-apathy writes:As to what to study, maybe you can point me in the right direction I honestly really don't know.

Buzsaw writes:Even Feyman admits that some of what he believes doesn't make sense to him in an on line lecture I listened to a few years ago.

Chioptera writes:Here is a brief (and probably inaccurate) description of Big Bang. I welcome any corrections from those who actually have any knowledge of this subject.It is an observational fact that the spectra of distant galaxies are red shifted. It is a standard interpretation of such a red shift that these galaxies are receding from us.It is an observational fact that the amount of the redshift is proportional to their distance from us. A reasonable interpretation is that the universe itself is expanding. This is reasonable since General Relativity, a well-verified scientific theory, itself makes the prediction that the universe must either be expanding or contracting -- unless one adds an ad hoc kluge to prevent it.So, assuming that the universe is expanding, we can then, mentally, "run the clock backwards" to see what the universe was like in the past. Well, galaxies must have been closer in the past. The universe must have been denser, and, using the known laws of physics, we can determine that the universe was hotter in the past.Eventually, we get to a point that the universe was so dense and so hot that the known laws of physics are known to be inadequate to accurately describe the universe. At this point, we cannot continue to extrapolate backwards, and so we can only guess at what the universe may have been like, what processes may have been occurring.
These are not idle speculations -- we can test whether there is any validity to this theory.For instance, if the universe is really expanding, it must have been very hot in the distant past. If it were very hot in the distant past, the universe must have been filled with a "blackbody radiation" that was indicative of this situation. As the universe expanded to our present day, this radiation, by our known laws of physics, must have retained its blackbody temperature, but "cool" down, becoming indicative of a cooler temperture: it must be mostly microwave radiation.In other words, if Big Bang is correct, the universe must be filled with this microwave radiation. We do, in fact, observe this radiation -- a confirmation of a prediction of this theory, in the best traditions of science.What the Big Bang does not do is describe the actual beginning of the universe, if it does indeed have a beginning. As I have stated in other threads, our present laws of physics are not adequate to describe the universe before a certain time after the creation. Right now scientists are trying to improve our understanding of the laws of physics so that we can understand the universe at these earlier times, but for now any discussion of the origin of the universe can only be speculation.It may always be only speculation. It may be that our knowledge of the laws of science will always be inadequate to understand the nature of the origin of the universe, if it does have an origin.

Modulous writes: One superpowerful entity that betrays explanation is an entity too far. I am only positing one entity - reality.

Chioptera writes:If the universe has no cause, then there would be no way to explain how it came to be since it would simply exist.

cavediver writes:We (as in cosmologists and theoretical physicists) do not believe the universe came from nothing. Such a thing, as you say, makes little sense and is not part of the theory, despite what is said. All that exists of natural existence is within the universe.All beginnings and ends, and their in-betweens, exist within the universe. The universe itself just is. It is the entirety of existence.The Big Bang simply represents a point in the universe where there can be no "before", just as the North Pole is the place where there can be no "further north". There may well be a "South Pole" or Big Crunch (though it looks less likely these days) which is the point where there is no "after". But before, after and in-between do not apply to the universe itself. It just is.