Before the Big Bang

**Oneironaut Zero** · 03-23-2011 06:11 PM

Pretty exciting stuff.

"We Can See Through the Big Bang to the Universe That Existed Before Ours."

**Sornaensis** · 03-23-2011 06:13 PM

Holy crap, I fell out of my chair.

Off to read the article nao...

**Replicon** · 03-23-2011 06:22 PM

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.

**Philosopher8659** · 03-23-2011 06:24 PM

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.

**sloth** · 03-23-2011 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

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.
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.

**Xei** · 03-23-2011 07:48 PM

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.

**sloth** · 03-23-2011 07:51 PM

I have been wondering if the big bang was simply the explosion of a superstring from an extra dimension.

**Descensus** · 03-24-2011 01:12 AM

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

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.

lol, wow.

**Oneironaut Zero** · 03-24-2011 02:39 AM

The counter-argument:
No Evidence of Time Before Big Bang

**stormcrow** · 03-24-2011 02:48 AM

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

**Oneironaut Zero** · 03-24-2011 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by stormcrow

Edit- Dammit Oneironaut! you beat me to it.

Hehe.

**tommo** · 03-24-2011 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by sloth

I have been wondering if the big bang was simply the explosion of a superstring from an extra dimension.

I have been wondering if it was just matter spewing from a super-massive black hole.

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?

**Xei** · 03-24-2011 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by stormcrow

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.

By eternal you mean repeated Big Bangs?

Which problems does this solve?

**Philosopher8659** · 03-24-2011 11:43 AM

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.

**Xei** · 03-24-2011 11:45 AM

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?

**Philosopher8659** · 03-24-2011 11:50 AM

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.

**tommo** · 03-24-2011 12:27 PM

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.

**DrunkenArse** · 03-24-2011 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

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.

That's the first smart thing I've ever heard you say. You should apply it.

**Philosopher8659** · 03-24-2011 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by tommo

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.

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?

As far as Stoned goes, anyone loose a horny chiwawa?

**tommo** · 03-24-2011 12:41 PM

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?

Grammar has almost nothing to do with logic. And you didn't refute my argument at all.

**Philosopher8659** · 03-24-2011 12:45 PM

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.

**DrunkenArse** · 03-24-2011 12:45 PM

CAREFUL TOMMO! Warning about circle squarers Heed the warning!

**Philosopher8659** · 03-24-2011 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by PhilosopherStoned

CAREFUL TOMMO! Warning about circle squarers Heed the warning!

Dont worry Stone, I have two legs that can be ridden.

**sloth** · 03-24-2011 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Philosopher8659

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.

Incorrect. The Big Bang Theory does not state anything about anything being created.

**Philosopher8659** · 03-24-2011 02:18 PM

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.