as glaucus said, not really.
all the evidence points to everything in the universe starting from a single event where everything is expanding from.
of course the devil is in the detail, which we don't really know.
Is the big bang theory true?
- Thread starter Ploughing
- Start date
- Status
as glaucus said, not really.
all the evidence points to everything in the universe starting from a single event where everything is expanding from.
of course the devil is in the detail, which we don't really know.
As others have said no not really. It is surprising to see that some people still think the universe is eternal.
Also, I don't understand why creationists wouldn't accept the big bang given the fact that it goes hand in hand with the view that the universe isn't eternal in the past and did have a beginning.
Probably because the figure of 13.9Bn years ago that comes attached to it. If you accept the Big Bang you need to accept the age of the universe which can be an issue for some creationists.
It was the detail I was referring rather than the actual premise of an expanding universe originating from a singularity.
Its the same as evolution. Bug bang theory doesnt go into the start, it explains what happens nano seconds afterwards.
So big bang theory stands, its the other theories under discusion.
Soldato
I must admit I don't quite understand how they arrive at the 13.9 billion years. So far as I understand it, they use the apparent redshift then extrapolate the data back. But if the space in the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light would that not mean the universe is possibly much larger than we can actually see. Especially at the beginning when it was supposed to be extremely fast. Or is that where the term "visible universe" comes from??
Last edited:
I am well aware of that. Never mind anyway, I was attempting to engender some significant debate on the underlying substance of the theory itself rather than a comparative lesson on the simplistic nature of the theory.
First of all I'm no expert and some of this might be completely and utterly wrong.
From a simplified way of looking at it without delving into quantum mechanics and so on after the big bang you'd have tons of particles whirling about that when they come into contact with each other will produce charges either attracting them together or pushing them away when enough have clumped together gravity will kick in to further influence the outcome.
Between these 2 mechanics they add a certain amount of order and regulation to the system that will influence the shape of all possible outcomes and result in a small number of outcomes amongst the many that will develop that by pure chance happen to make a certain amount of sense.
Another perspective if a little bit of a tangent is to look at the sigs in this thread - an image is just a set number of pixels with a certain number of different color values - if you set a piece of software going that generated every single combination of pixels possible eventually you'd see pretty much everything some of those images would produce patterns that actually made sense but you'd get a stupidly high number that were just random noise.
What niggles me more is what's beyond the universe.
It could be nothing, which means there's a sudden wall but then how does the universe expand in nothing. Or it could be something, which equally can hurt your brain trying to comprehend.
Sadly we'll likely never know
The problem is seeing nothing as a sudden wall - without properties it takes up no space and space only develops when you can measure the distance between 2 points, anything could keep moving indefinitely apart from something else... until it hit the upper number storage limit for the data type used to store coordinates on the compute simulating this universe
Last edited:
For some it is a bizarre need to have a literal understanding of the bible, if the universe is 13.9bn years old then the bible is no longer literal. At the end off the day science pretty much puts to bed Genesis being anything other than myth.
There is also the fact that, as far as Time goes, the Universe could in fact be eternal if Time came in to being at the same time as the Universe. Or there is the theory that dark matter is actually negative energy and when added to the total energy of the physical universe we come up with a zero sum position explaining the entire universe as a quantum fluctuation.
Science may put to bed the view of some that the universe is young, but that doesn't eradicate the creationist view that creation from nothing did indeed happen. At best science only eliminates a young earth view/interpretation of creationism.
If time came into being (at the same time as universe) then the universe obviously had a beginning and isn't eternal!
These theories about fluctuations of energy are dealing with after the big bang, not what caused the big bang itself.
It also eliminates Genesis as anything other than a Bronze Age myth. God may well have created the Universe but he didn't do it as described in Genesis.
Depends on your definition of eternal. When talking about how long something has existed we are measuring it using time, without time we have no concept of before and after, you need time to have a before.
Well no, the Big Bang could just be a quantum fluctuation that happened to cause this universe. There may have been universes before. We just don't know.
Your genesis comments are obviously relative to whatever your own interpretation may be. There are tons of different interpretations I'm sure.
I think you are missing the fundamental basics of the big bang theory itself. Eternal simply means outside of time. The big bang shows the beginning of time and so we know that the universe is not eternal.
Quantum fluctuations cannot be the cause of the universe. This is like Dennetts "ultimate bootstrapping trick" whereby the universe created itself.
It doesn't at least not in the commonly used definition of the term Myth on this forum anyway, what it does do is it eliminates a literal interpretation of Genesis...as Genesis is historically and widely accepted to be largely allegorical in its approach to creation, science doesn't really impact on it very much. A literal interpretation of Genesis as we see in conservative evangelicalism is ironically very new, not really predating Lamaitre by very much, if at all....the early Christian Church as well as mainstream theology do not, and generally have not, held Genesis to be a literal account of creation, but a device to convey mans relationship with both the Creator and his Creation within a universal narrative.
Anyway, let's keep this about cosmology rather than religion....
Last edited:
Genesis has nothing even remotely close to how the Universe came in to being. If we assume God is real and God did make the universe then the only thing that it gets right is mentioning God did it. Everything else is wrong as far as science understands cosmology. If you can suggest what "interpretation" of Genesis does fit in with our current understanding of cosmology I am all ears.
Except we don't know what was here before the universe. The science currently gives us an idea of what the universe could have been just after the big bang. Nothing from before.
Why can't they? Why couldn't it? We are talking about an event so completely unknown that we have no real idea of what is and isn't possible.
The term big bang has stuck and is misleading tbh. It should be called the big expansion really as that is still what is going on and on and on and on......
Could it be a battle in space, where the Team is expanding into TEAM B`s neck of the woods and Team B is fighting back with Black holes trying to suck it all back and slow it down.... Ok thats ******** but its got more credibility than the everything popping into existence in 6 days, gift wrapped with a nice little card on the side, just for you guys enjoy big hugs a mystery admirer.
Could it be a battle in space, where the Team is expanding into TEAM B`s neck of the woods and Team B is fighting back with Black holes trying to suck it all back and slow it down.... Ok thats ******** but its got more credibility than the everything popping into existence in 6 days, gift wrapped with a nice little card on the side, just for you guys enjoy big hugs a mystery admirer.
Permabanned
I suppose it's like the building blocks being there but it takes a builder or creator to put them into the complex order of the universe.
That creator/builder would of course have to have always existed, and be eternal to make something which had a beginning and create the building blocks.
We as humans can create and destroy but have the building blocks already made for us as we are limited to human powers. That creator would have to have more than human strength and ability's of course.
Last edited:
You really can't take a hint can you?
Caporegime
Hahahaha.
Back once again with the ill behaviour.
Back once again with the ill behaviour.
- Status