Big Bang

[Yamialpha]

Do you believe in the Big Bang? If not, what is your theory?

 

[fyodoros]

still looking for a book written for the layman. any recommendations?

 

[Cre8]

Big bongo.

Do you believe in the Big Bang? If not, what is your theory?

 

[Yamialpha]

still looking for a book written for the layman. any recommendations?

It'd depend on the amount of detail you want to go into with the Big Bang and other theories. There are plenty of websites that might help, although they lack detail.

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/b_bang.html
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html

Big bongo.

What is that?

 

[theFijian]

Big bongo

What is that?

This of course....

 

[Yamialpha]

Uh oh it's not working.

 

[all4more]

LOL thefijian!!

 

[Yamialpha]

For some reason the picture won't load.

 

[Yamialpha]

Nevermind it did. Quite humorous .

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

No -- but I do believe in the Great Noise.

2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

If not, what is your theory?

I believe God created the universe in 6 literal days, in the following unique ways:

1. Ex nihilo -- the universe started out at E = 0, then the amount of mass & energy was raised to its current level over a period of six days.
2. The order of the creation events are far different from the order of the Big Bang, making Genesis 1 totally incompatible with current scientific paradigms.
3. God embedded age into His creation, so that it came into existence containing maturity without history.

 

[SaintPhotios]

The Big Bang can't really be confused with a scientific theory. Scientific theories rely on what is observable. Their axioms can be stated in terms of the laws of physics. However, the Big Bang is a theoretical event in which the laws of physics are yet to be established. Many scientists adhere to it, but it's completely outside the jurisdiction of any field of science.

It's pure metaphysics.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Do you believe in the Big Bang?

No.

If not, what is your theory?

Does it matter if you don't have a theory to replace the Big Bang?

"...their [Big Bang] theory is incorrect but they don't have an accepted theory to replace it and that I think is very psychologically bothersome to particularly scientists who have gone into science in order to be certain about the world, to be sure that they're right and so forth, and it's a very insecure position. Some scientists have joked that, well, a scientist would rather be wrong than uncertain. We sort of have to live with uncertainty which is, well, it's an interesting and challenging situation." -- Halton C. Arp, astronomer, 1998

Personally I subscribe to the Intelligent Design theory of Anaxagoras.

"All things were mixed up together, then Mind came and arranged them all in distinct order." -- Anaxagoras, philosopher, 5th century B.C.

"Then I heard someone who had a book of Anaxagoras, as he said, out of which he read that mind was the disposer and cause of all, and I was quite delighted at the notion of this, which appeared admirable, and I said to myself; If mind is the disposer, mind will dispose all for the best, and put each particular in the best place ...." -- Plato, philosopher, Phaedo, 360 B.C.

"... Anaxagoras, who says that all things were together and at rest for an infinite period of time, and that then Mind introduced motion and separated them...." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book VIII, 350 B.C.

"He [Anaxagoras] said that the beginning of the universe was mind and matter, mind being the creator and matter that which came into being. For that when all things were together, mind came and arranged them." -- Hippolytus, priest, Refutation of All Heresies, 2nd century

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

still looking for a book written for the layman. any recommendations?

Arp., H.C., Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies, 1987

Lerner, E.J., The Big Bang Never Happened, 1992

Arp, H.C., Seeing Red, 1998

Arp, H.C., Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations, 2003

Wickramsinghe, N.C., et al., Fred Hoyle's Universe, 2010

Ratcliffe, H., The Static Universe, 2010

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The Big Bang can't really be confused with a scientific theory. Scientific theories rely on what is observable. Their axioms can be stated in terms of the laws of physics. However, the Big Bang is a theoretical event in which the laws of physics are yet to be established. Many scientists adhere to it, but it's completely outside the jurisdiction of any field of science.

It's pure metaphysics.

Agreed...

However, observations contradict the so-called "Hubble Law" which is what Lemaitre's hypothesis of the Primieval Atom is based upon.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The Big Bang can't really be confused with a scientific theory. Scientific theories rely on what is observable. Their axioms can be stated in terms of the laws of physics. However, the Big Bang is a theoretical event in which the laws of physics are yet to be established. Many scientists adhere to it, but it's completely outside the jurisdiction of any field of science.

It's pure metaphysics.

You misunderstand what the Big Bang is: it's the ongoing expansion of the universe, as demonstrated by multiple independent lines of evidence (redshift, CMBR, so-called 'fingers of God', etc). Contrary to popular belief, it's not a single event 13.5 billion years ago that began the universe - it's the expansion of the universe over 13.5 billion years ago from a singularity to its current form. What happened prior to 13.5 billion years ago is an open question, as is whether there even was a moment prior to 13.5 billion years ago.

Besides, slapping philosophical labels to things doesn't negate the evidence.

 

[badtim]

The Big Bang can't really be confused with a scientific theory. Scientific theories rely on what is observable. Their axioms can be stated in terms of the laws of physics. However, the Big Bang is a theoretical event in which the laws of physics are yet to be established. Many scientists adhere to it, but it's completely outside the jurisdiction of any field of science.

It's pure metaphysics.

ah, no. scientific theory is not inextricably tied to the laws of physics (see: Germ Theory, Evolution, etc) nor are they solely limited to observation, as induction is a valid logical process.

And as WC said, the Big Bang is not quite "an event" but a process that is ongoing today, and conforms to what we know about the universe -- it makes testable predictions regarding a number of things, redshift, cosmic background radiation, matter distribution, etc., and is supported by the math we know.

Is it the end-all-be-all of cosmological theory? Of course not, and no serious scientist maintains that it is. It's out current best theory on the subject, though, and anyone who wants to effectively attack it needs more than random quotes and personal objections.

 

[Chesterton]

You misunderstand what the Big Bang is: it's the ongoing expansion of the universe, as demonstrated by multiple independent lines of evidence (redshift, CMBR, so-called 'fingers of God', etc). Contrary to popular belief, it's not a single event 13.5 billion years ago that began the universe - it's the expansion of the universe over 13.5 billion years ago from a singularity to its current form. What happened prior to 13.5 billion years ago is an open question, as is whether there even was a moment prior to 13.5 billion years ago.

Is that really accurate? The "Bang" in Big Bang does not refer to the ongoing expansion; it refers to the initiation of the expansion, right?

 

[badtim]

Is that really accurate? The "Bang" in Big Bang does not refer to the ongoing expansion; it refers to the initiation of the expansion, right?

The term "Big Bang" was originally a derisive reference to the Lemaitre's theory, by Hoyle, who's Steady State theory was the other favored competing theory. It's purely a pop-culture term, though has become almost universally used, and really should not have much read into it.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is that really accurate? The "Bang" in Big Bang does not refer to the ongoing expansion; it refers to the initiation of the expansion, right?

What badtim said. It's just a historical relic.

'Christian' was once a pejorative used by non-Christians in Rome, before Christians adopted it as their own .

 

[AV1611VET]

'Christian' was once a pejorative used by non-Christians in Rome, before Christians adopted it as their own .

That would be Antioch -- not Rome.

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.