The Big Bang Theory

JAMELXD: What do you think about it?

franklin1950: if the universe is created spontaniously put of nothing and no one is there to witness it , does it make a sound?

oh_good_laughs: Seems to be missing fundamental pieces, it starts half way thru a story.. Like, now that we have time, space, and matter - this happens.

Roo_: Questionable, theres too many things missing,
the show kicks butt though

Geoff: Of all the hypotheses on the creation of the universe, it's the one with the most evidence supporting it.

//Edit -
Although it's not as funny as Kronos cutting of his dad's wedding tackle.

StuckInTheSixties: As Geoff says, it's the explanation with the most evidence supporting it. With that in mind, it's the explanation that I accept until or unless science overturns it.

But that explanation begs the obvious question:

"How did existence begin from nothingness?"

LiptonCambell: >>>if the universe is created spontaniously put of nothing and no one is there to witness it , does it make a sound?

No. There is no sound in space.

StuckInTheSixties: Lipton, take those kind of thoughts to Philosophy Forum where they belong!!!!!!

LiptonCambell: But its a literal, scientific answer! You would not be able to "hear" the big bang, whether you were there for it or not.

nellie77: I do not believe in Nothing, and not because its something, but because it is nothing..

StuckInTheSixties: If a tree fell in the vacuum of space, and no one was around to see it, would it be visible?

nellie77: Lol but in space no one hears you scream

djdan2: I would say the big bang did make a sound. Waves would have been produced which would correspond to sound waves on matter.

And I agree with a couple of other posters, the big bang theory is the most plausable, my theory is that there were endless universes before ours, and endless universes after ours. We are part of an infinate cycle of universes!

StuckInTheSixties: There is a hypothetical model of the uninverse where the Big Bang goes BANG!, the universe expands, slows, stops, contracts back into another singularity, and goes BANG! again ... endless, repeating forever. It's a lovely, elegant model of the universe having always been, and that will always be. Your reference to time, with the words "before ours" and "after ours" seems to indicate that you're referring to this model.

But science doesn't bear out that idea. Not only is the uninverse expansion NOT slowing, it's actually speeding up. Our destiny appears to be one that is far less appealing, one in which the universe expands endlessly until every object in it is completely alone. This would mean that there would be no "next" universe "after ours."

There may be other universes "along side" of ours, so to speak, but not in the cyclical sense you've apparently described.

oh_good_laughs: The majority of people who grab on to the Big Bang, do it to be part of the crowd.. Bandwagon followers.. 'It's the most plausible'?, wth.. The Big Bang is no more rational than any other explanation of our existence.

LiptonCambell: Uhhh....risen, theres evidence to support it.

Is there evidence to support the theory that the universe came from....wait....what other theories are there? Theres the theory that everything has always been(which is clearly not true), and the big bang theory....

Geoff: Astronomical Redshift and Cosmic Background Radiation.

Against...um...a book which has not proved itself to be a reliable scientific textbook.

Or even a worthy moral textbook.

StuckInTheSixties: I'm on the evidence bandwagon.

Point5andahalf: "The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws, and the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle states that on large scales the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic."
-quoted

This is just a thought:
According to the big bang theory, the OBSERVABLE universe has a constant
mass/energy. There was a beginning moment and we are the result 14 billion years later.
But how do we know if that moment is not a continual process and
matter is being created/synthesized constantly, hence the expansion.
Maybe the universe is not homogeneous and isotropic.
Maybe there is a centre, where matter comes into existence according to
the accepted theory, but it is continually happening.

After all, the energy had to come from somewhere in the beginning, and the mass of the ENTIRE universe could be infinite, or increasing.

This would mean our understanding of the formation of the visible universe is still correct.
And it woukd explain the expansion.
Otherwise, it seems to be dark energy is the answer, whatever that is.

CoIin: Yes, the Big Bang theory is far fetched, but any creation theory would have to be, wouldn't it? We can hardly expect a mundane explanation for an extraordinary event.

Point5andahalf: It's annoying, to not know the answers.
Maybe no one will ever know.
Here's hoping

CoIin: Yeah, but it's refreshing to hear people say "I don't know". Certainty always makes me nervous. "I'm right, ergo you're wrong. I'm gonna burn you at the stake/blow you up now...."

Point5andahalf: That's what drives the passion of the physicists and cosmologists,
... the need to know.

I wanna know too

LiptonCambell: I find too many people use "I don't know" as a tool to push idiotic or unrelated ideas("Appeal to Ignorance"- or to disfranchise the pursuit of actual knowledge cause, come on- who knows?(See pokermans arguments for examples)

oh_good_laughs: When one isn't sure, they should state that. Much better than running around with half flown-off ideas, snidely.

Geoff: If one follows the scientific method, then 'sure' is impossible.

One must always go with, "Best explanation of the available evidence."