COMMUNITY NOTICE: If you are having trouble in your account access, please do send us a message at [email protected] for assistance. Please update your email address.

Thanks,
pexer99

Before the Big Bang

logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
What was the Big Bang?

The Big Bang was the EXPANSION of space that created the universe as we know it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Expansion_of_space


What was before the big bang?

Do not confuse "what was" with "what happened". There is no way to know what happened before the big bang, but physicists have some theories on what existed before the expansion of space called "Big Bang":


An Initial Singularity

The initial singularity was a gravitational singularity of seemingly infinite density thought to have contained all the mass and space-time of the Universe[1] before quantum fluctuations caused it to rapidly expand in the Big Bang and subsequent inflation, creating the present-day Universe.

 Although there is no direct evidence for a singularity of infinite density, the cosmic microwave background is evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity


Before the expansion, the entire universe was compressed into (nearly) infinitely small dimensions that were so small that the entire universe was subject to quantum mechanical uncertainty.

https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae693.cfm


Most scientists now believe that we live in a finite expanding universe which has not existed forever, and that all the matter, energy and space in the universe was once squeezed into an infinitesimally small volume, which erupted in a cataclysmic "explosion" which has become known as the Big Bang.

https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang.html




Dark Matter

New Study Reveals Dark Matter May Have Predated the Big Bang








«13456712

Comments

  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    ElCid said:
    Logitext said:
    3. I called out your baseless assumption that mass and energy had a beginning. If you cannot prove that this is scientific then your argument about absolute nothingness is unfounded.
    According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago.  The universe began, scientists believe, with every speck of its energy jammed into a very tiny point. This extremely dense point exploded with unimaginable force, creating matter and propelling it outward to make the billions of galaxies of our vast universe. Astrophysicists dubbed this titanic explosion the Big Bang.

    https://www.exploratorium.edu/origins/cern/ideas/bang.html

    Matter was created during the Big Bang as was Time, Energy and Space:

    The Big Bang created all the matter and energy in the Universe. Most of the hydrogen and helium in the Universe were created in the moments after the Big Bang. Heavier elements came later. The explosive power of supernovae creates and disperses a wide range of elements.

    https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/190389main_Cosmic_Elements_Poster_Back.pdf

    YOU LOSE AGAIN LOGITEXT.

    Your first source confirms that energy existed before  "this titanic explosion the Big Bang"



    Your second source is just a Cosmic Elements Poster containing a simplistic description of the big bang. The assignment for the poster is about the cosmic elements, not the big bang itself. This poster fails my original request:

    which scientific study states that mass and energy had a beginning? 




    I WIN AGAIN ELCID :lol:
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    And your point (on this thread) is...?
  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    And your point (on this thread) is...?

    That there is something before the Big Bang. Something other than a god.

    ElCid argues that there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang.
  • Desert_DolphinDesert_Dolphin PEx Rookie ⭐
    logitext said:
    And your point (on this thread) is...?

    That there is something before the Big Bang. Something other than a god.

    ElCid argues that there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang.
    I would like to point out that the Big Bang Theory, the prevailing cosmological model of the expanding universe, was proposed by Georges Lemaître, A CATHOLIC PRIEST.

    So, no matter how you misinterpret it, deliberately or most likely idiotically, the idea is of theistic source. LOL!
  • alchemistofophiralchemistofophir Christian Communist PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    edited September 25
    big bang doesn't explain the origin of consciousness. it just proposes the origin of the MATERIAL universe.

    but of course, it assumes that something caused it. and most likely that THAT SOMETHING can be posited as an ETERNAL consciousness.

    B) B) B)
    .V.. ..I..
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    logitext said:
    And your point (on this thread) is...?

    That there is something before the Big Bang. Something other than a god.

    ElCid argues that there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang.
    I would like to point out that the Big Bang Theory, the prevailing cosmological model of the expanding universe, was proposed by Georges Lemaître, A CATHOLIC PRIEST.

    So, no matter how you misinterpret it, deliberately or most likely idiotically, the idea is of theistic source. LOL!
    I said that on my posting a while ago!
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    logitext said:
    And your point (on this thread) is...?

    That there is something before the Big Bang. Something other than a god.

    ElCid argues that there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang.

    The Biases of the Big Bang Theory Proponents according to Other Physicists


    SCIENTIFICALLY BIAS



    THE most widely accepted model of the origin of the universe is known as the “big bang theory”. However, not all physicists and scientists are convinced that the big bang is more than myth. One astrophysicist not on the big bang bandwagon is Geoffrey Burbidge. A University of California–San Diego physicist, Burbidge is best known for his work concerning the origin of the elements within the nuclear reactions of stars. He argued against the big bang for 50 years. Although recent discoveries and studies show the anomalies of the so-called evidences regarding the big bang theory, but many still hang on it and easily dismissed any new ideas or evidences against that theory. About the biases of those insisting on the big bang model, this is what Burbidge said:

    “For most people cosmology equals the big bang—is synonymous with the big bang. It is not true, in my view, but that is the way everyone is now talking, working, thinking and expecting, in the same way that in 1930 people became convinced that the universe is expanding. It is an idea that people take and now include in their thinking and their dreaming. We are told that we now understand what happened in a hot big bang. 
    “When people make observations, they want to explain them. In the early days, people were observing and would publish without trying to fit it to a theory or into a puzzle. But things have changed. Today if you submit a paper and do not explain where it fits in, the referees and your colleagues will be chasing you saying that you must understand this, that or the other. 

    “The only thing we have going for us as scientists is the respect of our colleagues. And that comes through what we say or write. If others don’t like what we say or write, our reputations suffer, and for most young people that means they don’t get jobs or support for their work. It is a pernicious system.

    “The problem is that scientists are people. We like to think that we are creative people, and we are. But also, like other people, we are conservative. We may say we love new ideas, but if I’ve been working on something for 20 years I become dedicated to it. Take redshifts for example. If redshifts are a measure of the distance of quasars, then people who are studying quasars are studying the edge of the universe. So far so good. But suppose I don’t believe redshift is about distance, and I turn out to be right. Then all of the other people have to admit that they have wasted the last 20 years of their lives. People will move heaven and earth to see that this does not happen. I have seen this happen in practice. Most people don’t change their mind; most people repeat their thesis over and over.”

  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    edited September 25
    logitext said:
    And your point (on this thread) is...?

    That there is something before the Big Bang. Something other than a god.

    ElCid argues that there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang.
    I would like to point out that the Big Bang Theory, the prevailing cosmological model of the expanding universe, was proposed by Georges Lemaître, A CATHOLIC PRIEST.

    So, no matter how you misinterpret it, deliberately or most likely idiotically, the idea is of theistic source. LOL!

    :lol:
    That language, those ideas, that style, you just cant hide it. Elcid. :lol:

    Yes it was a catholic priest who first developed this theory. A lot of sciences were developed by catholic priests.
    But that doesnt prove that God exists.
    And it does not prove that there was absolute nothingness before the big bang. Even Georges Lemaître thought that everything originated from a PRIMEVAL ATOM.

  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐

    We all have biases. You have biases. I have biases. Scientists have biases.

    That doesnt mean Geoffrey Burbidge was right for not believing in the Big Bang.




  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    logitext said:

    We all have biases. You have biases. I have biases. Scientists have biases.

    That doesnt mean Geoffrey Burbidge was right for not believing in the Big Bang.




    Which goes back to you, so what are you "proving" now? :lol:

    By the way, Burbidge MADE A REALLY GOOD POINT HERE (which you probably did not read) :D

    “The problem is that scientists are people. We like to think that we are creative people, and we are. But also, like other people, we are conservative. We may say we love new ideas, but if I’ve been working on something for 20 years I become dedicated to it. Take redshifts for example. If redshifts are a measure of the distance of quasars, then people who are studying quasars are studying the edge of the universe. So far so good. But suppose I don’t believe redshift is about distance, and I turn out to be right. Then all of the other people have to admit that they have wasted the last 20 years of their lives. People will move heaven and earth to see that this does not happen. I have seen this happen in practice. Most people don’t change their mind; most people repeat their thesis over and over.”


  • lordlapulapulordlapulapu PEx Rookie ⭐
    Ang totoo around 5000 years old lang ang universe according sa biblia!

    Ganito iyun eh....

    Nung ginawa ng Dios si Eba at Adan adult na kaagad miski less than a day old lang nung lumabas sa mundo. Kayat kapag may scientist noon miskig kung anong tests pa gawin nila kay Eba at Adan lalabas sa instrumento nila na 20 years old na sila even though kagagawa lang sa kanila ng Dios!

    Ganun din ang universe natin ngayon. Lumalabas na 14,000,000,000 years sa instrumento pero sa totoo 5000 years old pa lang!

    ok? 
  • Desert_DolphinDesert_Dolphin PEx Rookie ⭐
    logitext said:
    And your point (on this thread) is...?

    That there is something before the Big Bang. Something other than a god.

    ElCid argues that there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang.
    I would like to point out that the Big Bang Theory, the prevailing cosmological model of the expanding universe, was proposed by Georges Lemaître, A CATHOLIC PRIEST.

    So, no matter how you misinterpret it, deliberately or most likely idiotically, the idea is of theistic source. LOL!
    I said that on my posting a while ago!
    You did? Hala! Some id jute like logitext might think I'm you! :lol:
  • Desert_DolphinDesert_Dolphin PEx Rookie ⭐
    logitext said:
    And your point (on this thread) is...?

    That there is something before the Big Bang. Something other than a god.

    ElCid argues that there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang.
    The way I see it, you are hell bent on finding a mistake in sir El Cid's statements and not on disproving the idea presented. Obsessive much? :)
  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    logitext said:
    And your point (on this thread) is...?

    That there is something before the Big Bang. Something other than a god.

    ElCid argues that there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang.
    The way I see it, you are hell bent on finding a mistake in sir El Cid's statements and not on disproving the idea presented. Obsessive much? :)

     Although there is no direct evidence for a singularity of infinite density, the cosmic microwave background is evidence that the universe expanded from a very hot, dense state.[5]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_singularity


    Before the Big Bang (expansion of space) therere was that very hot dense state.
    The idea presented that it was 'absolute nothing' before the Big Bang had been disproven.

  • JuanTamad_JuanTamad_ Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    logitext said:
    And your point (on this thread) is...?

    That there is something before the Big Bang. Something other than a god.

    ElCid argues that there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang.
    I would like to point out that the Big Bang Theory, the prevailing cosmological model of the expanding universe, was proposed by Georges Lemaître, A CATHOLIC PRIEST.

    So, no matter how you misinterpret it, deliberately or most likely idiotically, the idea is of theistic source. LOL!

    Therefore, ang ideya ba ng isang matalinong theist ay nagmula sa dios niya?

    Ang ideya ng isang matalinong Hindu, KANINO NAGMULA?

    Eh, ang ideya ng isang bob0ng Kristiyano, KANINO NAGMULA?
  • JuanTamad_JuanTamad_ Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    logitext said:
    And your point (on this thread) is...?

    That there is something before the Big Bang. Something other than a god.

    ElCid argues that there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang.

    The Biases of the Big Bang Theory Proponents according to Other Physicists


    SCIENTIFICALLY BIAS



    THE most widely accepted model of the origin of the universe is known as the “big bang theory”. However, not all physicists and scientists are convinced that the big bang is more than myth. One astrophysicist not on the big bang bandwagon is Geoffrey Burbidge. A University of California–San Diego physicist, Burbidge is best known for his work concerning the origin of the elements within the nuclear reactions of stars. He argued against the big bang for 50 years. Although recent discoveries and studies show the anomalies of the so-called evidences regarding the big bang theory, but many still hang on it and easily dismissed any new ideas or evidences against that theory. About the biases of those insisting on the big bang model, this is what Burbidge said:

    “For most people cosmology equals the big bang—is synonymous with the big bang. It is not true, in my view, but that is the way everyone is now talking, working, thinking and expecting, in the same way that in 1930 people became convinced that the universe is expanding. It is an idea that people take and now include in their thinking and their dreaming. We are told that we now understand what happened in a hot big bang. 
    “When people make observations, they want to explain them. In the early days, people were observing and would publish without trying to fit it to a theory or into a puzzle. But things have changed. Today if you submit a paper and do not explain where it fits in, the referees and your colleagues will be chasing you saying that you must understand this, that or the other. 

    “The only thing we have going for us as scientists is the respect of our colleagues. And that comes through what we say or write. If others don’t like what we say or write, our reputations suffer, and for most young people that means they don’t get jobs or support for their work. It is a pernicious system.

    “The problem is that scientists are people. We like to think that we are creative people, and we are. But also, like other people, we are conservative. We may say we love new ideas, but if I’ve been working on something for 20 years I become dedicated to it. Take redshifts for example. If redshifts are a measure of the distance of quasars, then people who are studying quasars are studying the edge of the universe. So far so good. But suppose I don’t believe redshift is about distance, and I turn out to be right. Then all of the other people have to admit that they have wasted the last 20 years of their lives. People will move heaven and earth to see that this does not happen. I have seen this happen in practice. Most people don’t change their mind; most people repeat their thesis over and over.”


    At ipinaliwanag ba ni Geoffrey Burbidge ang pagtutol niya sa PATUNAY ng Big Bang?
    "In his late years, Burbidge was known mostly for his alternative cosmology "quasi-steady state theory", which contradicts the Big Bang theory.[6]"

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Burbidge
    "In cosmology, the steady state model is an alternative to the Big Bang theory of the evolution of the universe. In the steady state model, the density of matter in the expanding universe remains unchanged due to a continuous creation of matter, thus adhering to the perfect cosmological principle, a principle that asserts that the observable universe is basically the same at any time as well as at any place.

    While the steady state model enjoyed some minority support in the scientific mainstream until the mid-20th century, it is now rejected by the vast majority of cosmologistsastrophysicists and astronomers, as the observational evidence points to a hot Big Bang cosmology with a finite age of the universe, which the steady state model does not predict.[1][2]"

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model
    "Following the Second World War, a battle for the origin of the universe was waged by two teams of nuclear physicists; one led by George Gamow, the other by Fred Hoyle. Both would be incredibly successful, but not quite in the ways they expected."

    "Hoyle imagined the universe to be everlasting and spatially infinite. He thought it should look pretty much the same when viewed from any point and at any time. Along with two colleagues, Thomas Gold and Hermann Bondi, Hoyle developed a highly original model of the universe based on this assumption and published it in 1948 as The Steady State Theory."

    "Alpher and Herman realised the Big Bang had a consequence that could be tested. If the theory was correct, the universe was originally filled with photons scattering off charged particles such as electrons and protons. It would have cooled as it expanded until after a few hundred thousand years the protons and electrons combined into hydrogen atoms. As hydrogen gas is transparent, the photons would no longer interact with the matter. So, if the Big Bang really happened, it should be possible to detect this left over radiation from the early universe."

    "Meanwhile Gamow’s intellectual adversary Hoyle worked out the physics of nuclear fusion in stars. Hoyle’s earliest papers were written in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Like all science, nuclear physics is a collaborative enterprise, so Hoyle built on critical ideas developed by Gamow, Bethe and others. The details of the forging of atoms in stars were presented in a big review paper published in 1957 known as B²FH after its authors Burbage, Burbage, Fowler and Hoyle, where Burbage and Burbage are the husband and wife team Geoffrey and Margaret Burbage, and Fowler is Willy Fowler. Although Hoyle is recognised as the architect of the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis, Fowler was the only member of the B²FH collaboration to receive the Nobel Prize."

    "The cosmic microwave background has been studied in detail by a series of space probes. When local effects due to our motion are taken into account, it is almost perfectly uniform across the entire sky. There are tiny variations in temperature due to the clumping of matter in the early universe. The regions of higher density are the seeds from which super clusters of galaxies will grow. They have been mapped with great precision and are the best source of information we have about the structure and evolution of the universe. This has given us the most precise age for the universe and has confirmed that most of the mass in the universe is in an unknown form known as dark matter. The only explanation that accounts for the data is that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago in a hot Big Bang."

    http://quantumwavepublishing.co.uk/nuclear-war-for-the-cosmos/ 
  • KidlatNgayonKidlatNgayon Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    The point here is NOT ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE, therefore it will NEVER BE PROVEN as what human knowledge has declared!
  • AgapitoAgapito Member PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    logitext said:

    There is no way to know what happened before the big bang

    Before the expansion, the entire universe was compressed into (nearly) infinitely small dimensions

    the universe was once squeezed into an infinitesimally small volume


    In the phrase "before the big bang", the word "before" denotes a description of time. And the way "time" is described in this manner, there is an assumption of a reference point of time, because otherwise the word "before" has no meaning.

    So in this big bang example, it is ASSUMED that the big bang is TIME ZERO (t = 0). In English prose, "the beginning of time ".

    This is where the argument that you have to DEFINE something, otherwise it will go on to Infinity. But the act of "defining" something, is a human aspect (for the benefit of human understanding). Because without a definition, everything is thought to be ABSURD in some logician's point of view.

    BUT THE REALITY IS, time does not start at ZERO. Time is infinite in all directions, whether going forwards or backwards from a point of reference. You only identify the "start of time", by slicing the time stream.

    It's just like in Geometry, that a line is infinite. A line has no beginning, it has no end. Once you slice the line to identify a starting point and an end point, it becomes a segment. But if it's just a starting point in a line with no end, it is called a "ray".

    The concept of the big bang (atleast in Biblical terms), appears to be a "ray" in time. Because the Bible starts with "In the beginning was the Word...", and concludes with the reward of "everlasting life" (which means, there is no end in time). So our "existence", is a "ray" in time.

    The fact that the Theist argument that God has no beginning, signifies that time itself has no beginning. Because you cannot plot an existence, without a unit of time. So if God exists, then time exists. So time "started" when God came to existence. And when did God come into existence? Theist answer = God did not come into existence, God has always been there all along.

  • logitextlogitext PEx Veteran ⭐⭐
    Agapito said:
    logitext said:

    There is no way to know what happened before the big bang

    Before the expansion, the entire universe was compressed into (nearly) infinitely small dimensions

    the universe was once squeezed into an infinitesimally small volume


    In the phrase "before the big bang", the word "before" denotes a description of time. And the way "time" is described in this manner, there is an assumption of a reference point of time, because otherwise the word "before" has no meaning.

    So in this big bang example, it is ASSUMED that the big bang is TIME ZERO (t = 0). In English prose, "the beginning of time ".

    This is where the argument that you have to DEFINE something, otherwise it will go on to Infinity. But the act of "defining" something, is a human aspect (for the benefit of human understanding). Because without a definition, everything is thought to be ABSURD in some logician's point of view.

    BUT THE REALITY IS, time does not start at ZERO. Time is infinite in all directions, whether going forwards or backwards from a point of reference. You only identify the "start of time", by slicing the time stream.

    It's just like in Geometry, that a line is infinite. A line has no beginning, it has no end. Once you slice the line to identify a starting point and an end point, it becomes a segment. But if it's just a starting point in a line with no end, it is called a "ray".

    The concept of the big bang (atleast in Biblical terms), appears to be a "ray" in time. Because the Bible starts with "In the beginning was the Word...", and concludes with the reward of "everlasting life" (which means, there is no end in time). So our "existence", is a "ray" in time.

    The fact that the Theist argument that God has no beginning, signifies that time itself has no beginning. Because you cannot plot an existence, without a unit of time. So if God exists, then time exists. So time "started" when God came to existence. And when did God come into existence? Theist answer = God did not come into existence, God has always been there all along.


    Agreed.
    In reality time does not start from zero. The only reason physicists say that time began with the Big Bang is because there is no way for us to know what happened before it. So from the limited human perspective time only began with the Big Bang.


  • ElCidElCid Roman Catholic PEx Influencer ⭐⭐⭐
    edited September 25
    logitext said:
    And your point (on this thread) is...?

    That there is something before the Big Bang. Something other than a god.

    ElCid argues that there was absolutely nothing before the Big Bang.
    The way I see it, you are hell bent on finding a mistake in sir El Cid's statements and not on disproving the idea presented. Obsessive much? :)
    Because I have been slapping him with my foot left and right in every thread that is why he wants to get even - with a vengeance.  He even made a stup!d thread hoping he could get points against me.  However, what he's doing proves the exact opposite - that he is very desperate.

    He is now having second thoughts about his world view - that atheists are comparable to the best of catholic saints wow and that the world would be better off without religion.  That is why he is doing his very best to demolish me.  Why? To preserve his twisted view of reality lol.

    Now he asks for 'scientific study' lol when he himself uses everything in the internet.  He is behaving more and more like a hypocrite.  He is proven to be intellectually dishonest so this does not surprise me anymore.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file