What happened before the bang does not change the fact that the bang happened. The whole "I don't know how it happened, so it must NOT have happened" is a tired, old, and pointless "argument"...Originally Posted by Aethelwulf
Senior Member
What happened before the bang does not change the fact that the bang happened. The whole "I don't know how it happened, so it must NOT have happened" is a tired, old, and pointless "argument"...
Last edited by R.A.F.; 2012-May-02 at 09:20 PM. Reason: added a "the"
Banned
Mine changes it completely. no where in the BB does it say ''many BB's happened''. This is closer to the parallel universe theory, except in my theory, you have many universes, but nothing is parallel about it. Everything is self-contained.
Order of Kilopi
You misunderstand the "everything" that you think the BB is supposed to explain. It is as simple as that.
Get up, a get-get, get down.
Banned
I'd argue, that anything that purports to explain everything, without explaining itself, is a dud-theory. It's a laxative for an easy-way-out - a half-hearted attempt to explain anything.
Order of Kilopi
Again you miss the point. The BB doesn't purport to explain "everything".
Get up, a get-get, get down.
Banned
Wrong, the BB was created to explain creation. It does not explain creation if it cannot explain it's own.
It's like a dice. Do you look at a dice for the side six being presented, without explaining it was thrown in the first place?
The BB is redundant and wrong without being capable of giving answers to the real fundamentals. The BB was CREATED TO EXPLAIN EXISTENCE AS WE KNOW IT.
Order of Kilopi
That is quite simply wrong.
The BB explains the Universe as we currently see it. It does not attempt to explain what was before itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
Get up, a get-get, get down.
Established Member
Well, thats the problem - you cannot understand that BB theory starts with an existing universe and then describes how it changes. It's quite simple.
Senior Member
Creation??? Why the use of this particular word???
No...it is not "like dice"....a completely irrelevant analogy.It's like a dice. Do you look at a dice for the side six being presented, without explaining it was thrown in the first place?
...and now, we have your "argument" based on SHOUTING.The BB is redundant and wrong without being capable of giving answers to the real fundamentals. The BB was CREATED TO EXPLAIN EXISTENCE AS WE KNOW IT.
Forgive me for being unimpressed....
Senior Member
I'm getting the "impression" that he is just not seeing that...making it all the more difficult to reach a "common ground" for discussion.
Established Member
Wrong, the BB theory was created as an explanation of the Hubble observations of the current existing universe. This gave a model that was extrapolated back in time for this existing universe.
It was noted that GR shows that there is a singularity at t=0 for this existing universe. That is usually interpreted as a problem with GR that should be solved if QM is added since the length scales are those at whach QM dominates.
It's like a die. Do you have to explain the origin of a die when reading a die (let see - it was manufactured in this factory, etc.)? No you do not. All you do is observe the die every time that it is rolled.
Banned
Creation... definition, my own, anything that has a design. This universe could have defined itself. I don't mean to invoke a superintelligence. Though, I am open to that possibility. Even Hawking was at one point.
Listen, you can't have a theory which attempts to explain all creation without creation explaining itself. If you except that it does not need to, then you are ignoring anything before it, you also ignore the fact that our current theory does not attempt to explain everything.
The BB is quite simply, redundant. If no one here understands that, I repectfully question the logic of scientific mainstream --- you can't have a theory explain anything after it and be happy about it, without explaining how ''IT'' came about. You are then dogding the true science behind finding answers to a mechanical world...
...Indeed, you may as well say we do not live in one.
Banned
If the dichotemy is that BB does not NEED TO EXPLAIN IT, it does not need to explain creation with the RIGOUR MY THEORY OF THE SEA OF UNIVERSES DOES NOT NEED TO EXPLAIN ITSELF.
The BB does not give a reason why it should not predict itself, whilst my sea of universes DOES.
Order of Kilopi
The big bang doesn't "attempts to explain all creation".
No. You are ignoring that it doesn't attempt to, and then claiming it's an issue.
Get up, a get-get, get down.
Banned
It does. It explains anything after it, and anything before it is ignored.
This is a major problem. Again,
If the dichotemy is that BB does not NEED TO EXPLAIN IT, it does not need to explain creation with the RIGOUR MY THEORY OF THE SEA OF UNIVERSES DOES NOT NEED TO EXPLAIN ITSELF.
The BB does not give a reason why it should not predict itself, whilst my sea of universes DOES
the question is not whether it attempts to explain it, the problem is that it doesn't. Any theory which will, cannot be BB.
Why is this a mental block?
Banned
I feel like I am constantly repeating myself. BB is the creation point:
and since I feel like I am repeating myself, I should in it's full glory:
Creation... definition, my own, anything that has a design. This universe could have defined itself. I don't mean to invoke a superintelligence. Though, I am open to that possibility. Even Hawking was at one point.
Listen, you can't have a theory which attempts to explain all creation without creation explaining itself. If you except that it does not need to, then you are ignoring anything before it, you also ignore the fact that our current theory does not attempt to explain everything.
The BB is quite simply, redundant. If no one here understands that, I repectfully question the logic of scientific mainstream --- you can't have a theory explain anything after it and be happy about it, without explaining how ''IT'' came about. You are then dogding the true science behind finding answers to a mechanical world...
...Indeed, you may as well say we do not live in one.
Banned
No one is reading me carefully. I know quite well it does not answer this. THIS IS THE PROBLEM.
You can't have a theory just explaining anything after it without explaining what caused it. What caused it and what came after it are in fact synonymous.
Order of Kilopi
Geologists can study the formation of mountains without having to delve back into the processes in Stars that created the stuff the mountains are made of. A theory works within a specific scope, and that's fine. The BB simply doesn't address what came before, and that is not considered an issue.
Certainly there are people working on the problem of what came before, there's no "ban" on that.
Here on BAUT I've seen people try before, too. Two of the more common ideas (just for example, I don't subscribe to them nor want them discussed in this thread) are:
1. Matter falls into black holes. It "comes out" into another Universe. For that Universe that matter from the black hole is its Big Bang.
2. When the Universe stops expanding, it will collapse back into itself. Then it will "bang again" into a new Universe.
Your theory is just another attempt along these lines, to find a way to look back before the big bang. The relevant points here are:
A: Just because your idea does go back before the big bang, does not in itself make your idea "better" or "more true".
B: Neither does your idea invalidate the big bang. Because the big bang very nicely covers what we can actually see - the subject matter it covers (not the subject matter you think it should cover).
Get up, a get-get, get down.
Order of Kilopi
This is not a problem with the big bang theory.
The big bang theory is an description of what we currently observe. It is a description of the evolution of the universe. It is still valid even with no understanding how the universe came to be.
This is analogous to how the bilogical theory of evolution by natural selection is valid even without a theory of abiogenesis. It is equally valid if life on Earth came about by a purely natural chemical process or panspermia or some sort of metaphysical event.
Your theory must end up with a universe that looks just like ours; i.e. a universe that evolved as described by the big bang theory. All you are doing is hypothesizing about the earlier stages. Probably worth doing. Probably untestable (currently). And will probably have only miniaml, if any, effect on the big bang theory.
Banned
Confused, how is what we observe any differrent to how we know it?
Banned
It's not a problem because it does not admit a problem
There quite clearly is though. The chicken-egg scenario is thrown heavily out the window because they just accept there should be no prior cause. Again, we live in a mechanical unievrse.
Order of Kilopi
You are. And it isn't.
Banned
The BB is ignorant. It does not care, I accept this. Ignorance can be bliss indeed.
Order of Kilopi
I agree there is a problem: we don't know how or if the universe came into existence.
But: that is not a problem with or for the big bang theory.
This is all rather meta and irrelevant to your proposal. You seem to want to use it to "bash" the big bang theory, but you are talking about something completely different.
Senior Member
And AGAIN you utilize one of the "buzz words"...sorry but there was no "design".
Comparing oneself to Steven Hawking noted...This universe could have defined itself. I don't mean to invoke a superintelligence. Though, I am open to that possibility. Even Hawking was at one point.
Sorry, but you've given me no reason to...Listen...
Why do you believe that we have to "agree" with your ideas?...you can't have a theory which attempts to explain all creation without creation explaining itself.
This is going around in circles...I see no need to continue.If you except that it does not need to, then you are ignoring anything before it, you also ignore the fact that our current theory does not attempt to explain everything.
The BB is quite simply, redundant. If no one here understands that, I repectfully question the logic of scientific mainstream
Oh, please....drop the histronics. You haven't provided ANY evidence for your ideas, so don't start with the "snarkeyness"...it simply will not serve you well on this board.
If I me so "bold"....no one here agrees with you, so your opinion on this matter is irrelevant.you can't have a theory explain anything after it and be happy about it, without explaining how ''IT'' came about. You are then dogding the true science behind finding answers to a mechanical world...
Now If you would like to provide some form of evidence, that would be a welcome "change"....
Banned
Assuming we live in a mechanical universe, there must be dynamics we can speak about. You lot are ignoring these dynamics because BB does not try to explain anything before it. THIS IS THE PROBLEM.
You can't have a theory just explaining anything after it without explaining what caused it. What caused it and what came after it are in fact synonymous.
Order of Kilopi
I don't really understand what you are saying. Things were observed (e.g. red shift) and a theory was built to explain those observations. That's science.
Part of the reason the big bang doesn't delve into what came before, is there's no data to work on. The big bang itself pretty well destroyed the "evidence"!
So any theory covering what came before, has to (pretty much by definition) be very very theoretical.
Get up, a get-get, get down.
Banned
What?
I haven't provided any evidence for my theory?
You must have missed the OP?
Banned
Look back at my previous post replying to your own. If confusion exists, I am amply certain it is from your side.
Order of Kilopi
It is, of the "creation event" (1).
As another analogy: when we are designing another high performance microprocessor, we don't worry about where the silicon to make the wafers comes from (2). We assume it is there ready to be etched and doped.
(1) or absence thereof
(2) well, we did when an earthquake and fire destroyed the main factory in Japan
Posting Permissions
