Pretty exciting stuff. :goodjob2:
"We Can See Through the Big Bang to the Universe That Existed Before Ours."
Printable View
Pretty exciting stuff. :goodjob2:
"We Can See Through the Big Bang to the Universe That Existed Before Ours."
Holy crap, I fell out of my chair.
Off to read the article nao...
It's early to make any leaps for joy, but I think it'd be shocking if the big bang, as it is understood by most, is the be-all, end-all of existence. Just like neutonian mechanics, it's an "accurate enough" model to represent most useful calculations, but if you go beyond the model's operational range, you will likely find something different. I think Stephen Hawking has already presented a model of curved space/time where no discontinuities exist... That is, where things seem discontinuous in our space, they're actually smooth. It's been a very, very long time since I've read that, so I don't remember much about the details of that model.
Seems like there is at least one with a smigeon of common sense. Anyone with a brain could not possibly believe in the
big bang idea.
Incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosopher8659
Anyone with a brain could possibly believe in the big bang idea, or the Hail Bop Comet idea, the Tooth Fairy.
It is anyone without a brain that could not possibly believe in the Big Bang idea, or anything else.
Right, of course; galaxies are all flying away from each other, but if you go back in time, they weren't any closer together. Derp.
Most of the big picture of physics is incomplete. I don't pretend to understand the physics of Penrose's evidence, if it is indeed there, but this needs to be taken with a large grain of salt as there is a lot of evidence on the other side, too; the side that says the expansion of the universe is accelerating and so the universe will never shrink back and be born again.
I have been wondering if the big bang was simply the explosion of a superstring from an extra dimension.
lol, wow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosopher8659
The counter-argument:
No Evidence of Time Before Big Bang
Actually Penrose recently claimed that there was some activity before the big bang and it is probable that there have been many big bangs.
Personally Ive always been a proponent of the idea that the universe didn't have an origin and is eternal. It is a really simple explanation that solves alot of problems in physics.
Edit- Dammit Oneironaut! you beat me to it.
Have Physicists Found Echoes From Before the Big Bang? | 80beats | Discover Magazine
Penrose: WMAP Shows Evidence of
Hehe. :>Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
I have been wondering if it was just matter spewing from a super-massive black hole.Quote:
Originally Posted by sloth
This stuff is always interesting. But it always comes back to, how did it start in the first place.
Also, can someone show me these concentric circles? Instead of just saying they're there?
By eternal you mean repeated Big Bangs?Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
Which problems does this solve?
According to the math of the Big Bang, it is just another way of saying everything was created out of nothing. How different is that from saying God created everything from nothing? Or, more to the point, how different is a singularity from nothing?
The linguistic fallacies of the whole theory should be obvious to a child, but it seems that grown and educated people can look at a contradiction and not even see it.
So you do think that despite the observed fact that galaxies are all moving away from one another, if we go back in time they were no closer together?
Ever do any geometry? The fact that an equation in one section of a curve goes one way, don't mean it goes always.
Many people would rather construct a myth, perpetuate a lie, than simply say, "I don't know." Religion and Science has a common meeting point in the mind of man. Yet in order to heal the mind, one must take that first step--and simply recognize our own ignorance, and say "I don't know." therefore, instead of constructing fantasies, I must learn.
They aren't fantasies. They are THEORIES. We can't just go off randomly trying to figure something out. We must decide first what is likely and then see if we can find evidence for and against it.
That's the first smart thing I've ever heard you say. You should apply it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosopher8659
Actually, one needs to know the fundamentals of logic--grammar first. Seach the net, the foundation of the simple sentence is not yet known--or taught. How can one speak about anything with confidence when being ignorant of first principles?Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
As far as Stoned goes, anyone loose a horny chiwawa?
Grammar has almost nothing to do with logic. And you didn't refute my argument at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosopher8659
Grammar is a synonym for logic, or do you think that the manipulation of names is different from the manipulation of names? duh.
Anyway, you illustrate why prophets are taught the way they are taught, to abstract the similie in multis, the one idea in the many examples. Without it, you call the same thing different, i.e. incapable of judgment.
CAREFUL TOMMO! Warning about circle squarers Heed the warning!
Dont worry Stone, I have two legs that can be ridden.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned
Incorrect. The Big Bang Theory does not state anything about anything being created.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philosopher8659
And just what do you call a singularity?
zero volume is just another way of saying does not exist.
It does not matter if you put a creationist theory in a dress or in pants, from the foundation of any and every grammar system, one cannot predicate existence. That realization goes as far back as at least Plato.
Every logic system, grammar system, starts with givens. Pulling them out of a hat, or out of singularities, is simply saying the non-given given--a foundation of sand.