The beauty of science

#2
#2
Interesting, thanks for posting. I've questioned in here several times why there even has to be a "before the big bang" question. Time could simply be a closed manifold with no beginning or end, negating the whole "what came before the big bang" question to begin with.

The reconciliation of quantum mechanics and general relativity really is the holy grail of physics.
 
#5
#5
From I read, it doesn't seem to be completely denouncing the Big Bang. I can't claim to know a ton about physics, but they said either way the universe was once extremely hot and extremely small.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6
#6
From I read, it doesn't seem to be completely denouncing the Big Bang. I can't claim to know a ton about physics, but they said either way the universe was once extremely hot and extremely small.

It's ultimately pointing to nothing more significant than that we're using the terms space and time incorrectly.
 
#12
#12
Meh, I think the death of the Big Bang is premature.

If the universe is infinite, and entropy is continually increasing in a closed system, then we should have reached equilibrium and heat death...well...an infinity ago.

It is contrary to the Laws of Thermodynamics, and to any common sense understanding of causality.

An infinite regress suffers from the "turtles all the way down" problem, where there is no logical link from the infinite past to the present. If there is an infinite set of antecedent causes, then we would never reach the current moment because there would always be another antecedent cause preceding it.

Some are trying to dismiss the Big Bang because of its implications for a Creator or First Cause of some sort.

But, the problems for an eternal steady-state universe are far worse than the BBT model.
 
#16
#16
You do realize a catholic priest came up with the Big Bang theory. I find it humorous liberals like to point at that theory to prove that God isn't real.

Now that it's possible the universe is never ending and infinite (all things that sound familiar to people who read the bible), it's silence from the liberals.
 
#17
#17
You do realize a catholic priest came up with the Big Bang theory. I find it humorous liberals like to point at that theory to prove that God isn't real.

Now that it's possible the universe is never ending and infinite (all things that sound familiar to people who read the bible), it's silence from the liberals.

The Big Bang has nothing to do with proving or disproving God nor have liberals ever tried to claim such. Only christians try to make the Big Bang theory about God. The same with evolution. It is pathetic that you can't comment on science without commenting on politics, however.

If you want to make this about God though, how does an infinite universe correspond to the story of genesis?

"In the beginning" o wait....there was no beginning.
 
Last edited:
#18
#18
The Big Bang has nothing to do with proving or disproving God nor have liberals ever tried to claim such. Only christians try to make the Big Bang theory about God. The same with evolution. It is pathetic that you can't comment on science without commenting on politics, however.

Is it also pathetic that you can't comment on science without commenting on religion? Because fwiw... you did the exact same thing that you are complaining about above in the very next post after his.

News flash: not having a beginning also negates the need for a creator
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#19
#19
You do realize a catholic priest came up with the Big Bang theory. I find it humorous liberals like to point at that theory to prove that God isn't real.

Now that it's possible the universe is never ending and infinite (all things that sound familiar to people who read the bible), it's silence from the liberals.

I find it humorous that you would post about theories and scientific principles that you are so blatantly ignorant of. It's obvious that all you did was read the headline and from there, your thought process(being generous) was "checkmate, atheists!"

Stay in school, kids.
 
#20
#20
Given the op, I would assume it was his intention from the start.

Wow you just cannot stop being wrong. I just found this article very interesting. Science is always learning new things and that is fascinating. My intention was to bring an interesting article for the adults to discuss. Obviously you don't qualify.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#22
#22
Is it also pathetic that you can't comment on science without commenting on religion? Because fwiw... you did the exact same thing that you are complaining about above in the very next post after his.

Look at his post again. He brought up religion. Not me
 
#23
#23
Misleading headline.

This part is particularly interesting:

However, the new equations are just one way to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity. For instance, a part of string theory known as string gas cosmology predicts that the universe once had a long-lasting static phase, while other theories predict there was once a cosmic "bounce," where the universe first contracted until it reached a very small size, then began expanding, Brandenberg said

So while there was a "big bang", the universe was either in a infinite static phase before, or was contracting from another expanded state. The equations, in an attempt to reconcile quantum and relativity, negate the idea of a "beginning" in the linear time sense.
 
#25
#25
From I read, it doesn't seem to be completely denouncing the Big Bang. I can't claim to know a ton about physics, but they said either way the universe was once extremely hot and extremely small.
Ah like my ex wife in her early 20's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

VN Store



Back
Top