Problems with the Big Bang theory

It seems reasonable, but there are two issues.1. We don't know that.2. The Big Bang doesn't postulate that something came from nothing, just that the universe used to be 'hotter' and 'denser'. If we consider space-time as a four dimensional object, and we look close to time=0 we get very hot and dense. Where this hotness and denseness came from is not really addressed by the Big Bang, and Relativity is unable to give an answer. More recent cosmology has been proposed to explain where the hotness and denseness came from, so you should probably consider those. The so called M-Theory for example - related to String Theory.There are some great FAQs out there that answer, or attempt to answer, this very interesting question. Try 121 FAQs about Big Bang Cosmology for the answer to some of them. You might also like M-theory, the theory formerly known as Strings.Hope that helps.

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.

Might I ask what cavediver said that made more sense to you than what had been said previously. Cavediver certainly gave a more complete description of the Big Bang model. Which element made more sense than the simplified answer everyone else had repeated over and again earlier (that is, that the Big Bang Model simply says things were hotter and denser, not that they came from nothing).Was it because he added God into his explanation? If that is the reason then that is of great interest to me. There is a recent debate about whether or not we should try explaining science to people in terms of their religion/culture. If you found that simply adding God to the explanation helped you understand some part of the Big Bang Model - then I'd be very excited to hear about it.Depending on your reply, I might start a thread on it.

What about Message 76 that says that the big bang doesn't seek to explain the origin of 'matter' (where matter I presume means stuff). Message 72 says the same thing. My Message 59 explains that the big bang doesn't explain this, only that things were once hotter and denser, but we don't know where the hotness and denseness came from - as does my Message 50. The possibility of God won't go away, of course, if we ever explain the origin of 'stuff'. It's just odd that DB (perhaps yourself as well?) seemed blind to the answers that didn't mention God, but did mention that we don't know the answer. A slight confusion here, let me clarify. No explanation can logically exclude God. I don't include God in my explanation as to why my pipes get blocked up, and I don't think you have a problem with that. Neglecting to mention that God could possibly have been involved is not the same as excluding him as a possibility. The 'god' explanation is a possibility for EVERYTHING. Thus, it is redundant to keep bringing it up. That is why I don't think we should stop with 'God Did It', otherwise I won't call a plumber to clear the grease/fat/dead animal/whatever. As such - if you explicitly excluded god as a possibility I would question your logic skills. Anyway, rather than drifting off topic, I'll think about posting a topic on this subject for further discussion. It might be quite interesting. In case I forget, or to whet your appetite, here is a strongly worded commentary on one aspect of the debate currently going on. I'll bring a more rounded treatment of it and PNT it - I'm a little busy for the rest of today so I'll try get it up sometime tomorrow.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.