Before the Big Bang

That's retarded.Equations come after the thing happens.We know that objects fall at 9.8 m/s/s after they have fallen, they don't fall at that rate because of the equation.What were you trying to say? That's reatarded too.Scientists can work because we live in an ordered universe and can make predictions. Can you also answer the question:

quote:

---

What is north of the Noth Pole?

---

Because that's the metaphor for the beginning of time. It is a point on a sphere, not a line, and there is nothing before it (accoding to modern science){nor north of it}. Dude... the equations didn't exist before we approximated them. They are our creation. They didn't exist before we wrote them down. Look, I beleive in God too. But yall are going about this the wrong way. You can't fight science to prove god. God relies on faith. A faith that requires proof is no faith at all.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : added signature

---

Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence.
Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith.
Science has failed our world.
Science has failed our Mother Earth.
-System of a Down, "Science"He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.
-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"

Thinking of the universe as a sphere growing in size, and drawing a vector from the center of the sphere to two point near each other on the surface, we will get two near-parallel lines. If these lines represent the pathway of two galaxies that started at the Big Bang (moving away from each other although very near parallel), then the force of gravity between these two galaxis could pull them towards each other until they were on a collision course.It is not impossible for galaxies to collide under the Big bang Theory.Also, its not like they're colliding like this: --> <--ABE: Because it doesn't say that everything came from absolutely nothing. Everything was there, it was just in a different state and location than it is now.Even if it wasn't much, it was not nothing. It was something.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE:

Even if a website says that the Big Bang theory says that stuff came from nothing, that doesn't mean that the actual Big Bang Theory say that it came from nothing, which it doesn't. That's just poor wording. You shouldn't use a webpage that is describing a theory as the actual theory itself.The singularity would have been all of space and all of time in one point. That point is the point in spacetime that the singularity existed "in". Spacetime didn't not exist at all, it was just in a different state and different position than it is now. Again, you shouldn't use a website's paraphrasing as the literal theory.I presume that the singularity, itself, would not be included in that everything as the Big Bang did not start the singularity. The singularity was there "before" the "bang". Time is just another dimenstion, like space is, so we can refer to them both as spcetime. At the singularity, spacetime didn't not exist, it all existed at one point.Particles and matter came later, after the Big Bang.I think Energy was present at the singularity. I believe you that that is the only way that you can see it happening, but that is not the only possible way of it happening. Right. GRAVITY.It wouldn't have been a sudden change in direction though. It would have gradually been curving their trajectories closer and closer towards each other. The larger the mass the more gravity and the more force so it is entirely possible.

Can you even admit that it is poosible that you are misunderstanding what Prof. Hawking said about spacetime having a beginning and an end?He is NOT saying that the universe came from an absense of anything. You have misunderstood him. "Beginning and end" are describing something other than the birth/death of our universe.Can you not see that as a possibility?Or are you going to continue to make yourself look like an idiotic asshole by closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears, and screaming "La, La, La!, Hawking says the universe cane from nothing!"???!!!!!!!!?????Man, your pissing me off.

You do. No, it doesn't. Wrong. The singularity did not have to arrise because of gravity. This is your false premise. This is the formation of A singularity. This is not how the singularity formed (the one that our universe arrose from).That is where your misunderstanding is.Now do you understand?Or are you just going to re-post the sameold bullshit you have, what?, like 10 times now?It really does make you look foolish.But I think that you will continue to choose to beLIEve and choose to be blind to the facts so that you can continue to believe that somehow the science is ridiculous and your Gen1:1 has value.You are disingenuous.