The Big Bang AKA Where The **** Did It All Start? - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > Community Center > The Lounge > Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-22-2011, 09:55 PM   #31 (permalink)
carpe musicam
 
Neapolitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tore View Post
The Big Bang hypothesis is a logical conclusion based on some observations, most notably the observation that our universe is expanding - drifting apart - which suggests it was all gathered in one place at some point and then something happened to spread it apart .. and microwave background radiation measurable in space which is regarded as energy leftovers from that explosion so many billion years ago.

I can't remember reading about anything that I thought made the Big Bang seem very unfeasible - at least it explains why we observe the stuff mentioned above, but I'd be interested in learning more about alternative hypotheses and what their logical basis are or what problems they help explain.

edit :

Should add that the existence of big bang background radiation was predicted/hypothesized first as a conclusion based on the big bang theory, then observed and measured after.
So what do you think of Georges Lemaître?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mord View Post
Actually, I like you a lot, Nea. That's why I treat you like ****. It's the MB way.

"it counts in our hearts" ?ºº?
“I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” Jack Kerouac.
“If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” Aristotle.
"If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." John Lennon
"I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." Keith Richards
Neapolitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 05:47 AM   #32 (permalink)
Make it so
 
Scarlett O'Hara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,181
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Duce View Post
yeah something like that

i think it's feasible that the entire universe could have just randomly appeared from nothing
I don't. It doesn't make any sense to me. I believe in God and believe he created Earth and the Universe.
__________________
"Elph is truly an enfant terrible of the forum, bless and curse him" - Marie, Queen of Thots
Scarlett O'Hara is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 02:56 PM   #33 (permalink)
( ̄ー ̄)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Duce View Post
yeah something like that

i think it's feasible that the entire universe could have just randomly appeared from nothing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanilla View Post
I don't. It doesn't make any sense to me. I believe in God and believe he created Earth and the Universe.
As a "non-believer", I'm free to accept any truth assertion about nature that can be reasonably argued for. I don't believe that cups, chairs, or people can pop into existence from nothing. And indeed no evidence supports that claim. But once we look closer at the objects deeper into their structure, we see their micro components--the components all things we see are made of. These are the atoms of course. And the sort of world atoms inhabit is quite different than the one we live in. One mindboggling fact about them is that they are nearly pure empty space, but yet once they're bunched up together they can become hard, tangible objects (and liquid and gas). Looking even more closely, we see that an atom's nucleus is surrounded by a cloud of electrons (and these are virtually massless!). At this level, the weirdness of reality is truly apparent. No use of common sense could help us imagine what nature at bottom would look like. It takes complex technology, astute observation, and scientific creativity and imagination to try to come to an understanding of how to make sense of all this. Going even more deeply now, we see that electrons themselves are made up of even smaller particles. We've now entered the domain of hardcore quantum mechanics. Here, you must leave your common sense at the door. It will not help you. Quantum physics represents the furthest humans have gone in understanding the most fundamental aspects of nature. As of now, humanity does not yet have a satisfactory explanation for the observations of these quantum particles we are able to detect. We can see how they behave. We can see how they interact. But we don't understand the underlying cause, yet. In experiments these quantum particles DO pop into and out of existence. We SEE it happening. We're trying to understand the mechanisms that govern this strange behavior, but it is very hard and difficult.

And now I'm brought back to your initial claim that I believe things can come from nothing. As I have tried to illustrate (hopefully well enough), our universe, in it's most basic parts, is very, very weird and mysterious. It's crucial to appreciate this when thinking about what sort of thing the origin of the universe would be like. As of now, it's origin is thought to be some kind of crazy quantum event in which, yes, out of nothing something arises. BUT, it's based on observation and everything else we know about how the universe at bottom works. Trusting the method of science is the most intellectually honest stance to take. Accrediting things to god is the same thing as cheating yourself, and the rest of us, of knowledge.
RVCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 03:58 PM   #34 (permalink)
Juicious Maximus III
 
Guybrush's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan View Post
So what do you think of Georges Lemaître?
Not much, really. I haven't read any of his articles, nor have I really checked out his background or scientific career. Why do you ask?
__________________
Something Completely Different
Guybrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 06:12 PM   #35 (permalink)
\/ GOD
 
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nowhere...
Posts: 2,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanilla View Post
I don't. It doesn't make any sense to me. I believe in God and believe he created Earth and the Universe.
Matter comes from energy, not nothing. Something we know happens. Energy changes matter.

IE. Fire turns water into mist.

In fact, all organic matter is converted from sunlight. Sunlight is a type of energy, and matter comes from it.

As for what your saying, this line of thought is just pretentious. You're saying it's an absolute necessity that God be human-like, and must create with a humanlike pattern.

Labeling God as 'he' indicates an attempt to humanize the concept of the universe, which has shown 0% evidence of ever assuming a human-like entity, or will to work in a sense that benefits the motives of a human-like lifeform.
__________________
Quote:
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
Al Pacino = God
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 08:02 PM   #36 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
[MERIT]'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Missouri, USA
Posts: 4,814
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA View Post
In experiments these quantum particles DO pop into and out of existence. We SEE it happening. We're trying to understand the mechanisms that govern this strange behavior, but it is very hard and difficult.
Could you go into any greater detail as to what quantum particles "pop" into and out of existance? As matter can neither be created nor destroyed, aren't these appearances just the result of interaction between other particles?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RVCA
As of now, it's origin is thought to be some kind of crazy quantum event in which, yes, out of nothing something arises.
I have been looking for sources regarding the Big Bang Theory that go into greater detail regarding matter and antimatter. We know that when the two come into contact, they react and produce immense amounts of energy. With them being so reactive, it's hard to believe that they were created at the same time and at the same place without annihilating each other and everything around them.
[MERIT] is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2011, 09:11 PM   #37 (permalink)
( ̄ー ̄)
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,270
Default

Hopefully this article explains it better than I can.
RVCA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 10:16 PM   #38 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Mr November's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Halifax, Canada
Posts: 429
Default

The question is where did it all start. Which to me means that you can't stop at the beginning of the universe, although it's apparently impossible to predict anything farther back than those first moments of the big bang, or whatever it is you choose to call it or believe happened.

Even if we could agree that the big bang was the start, we wouldn't have answered the question. What caused the creation of the universe, where did that cause come from.

If you're content to say that nothing created God/god/gods, or that God/god/gods have always existed, than why not save a step and apply the same lazy reasoning to the universe?
Mr November is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 10:21 PM   #39 (permalink)
carpe musicam
 
Neapolitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian E Coleman View Post
If you're content to say that nothing created God/god/gods, or that God/god/gods have always existed, than why not save a step and apply the same lazy reasoning to the universe?
Because an eternal God is not created, an eternal God is not made of matter, it's the matter in the universe that is created. An omnipotent eternal God created the matter in the universe. I'm too lazy to explain it any further. [yawn - stretch]
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mord View Post
Actually, I like you a lot, Nea. That's why I treat you like ****. It's the MB way.

"it counts in our hearts" ?ºº?
“I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” Jack Kerouac.
“If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” Aristotle.
"If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." John Lennon
"I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." Keith Richards
Neapolitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-27-2011, 11:42 PM   #40 (permalink)
\/ GOD
 
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Nowhere...
Posts: 2,179
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan View Post
Because an eternal God is not created, an eternal God is not made of matter, it's the matter in the universe that is created. An omnipotent eternal God created the matter in the universe. I'm too lazy to explain it any further. [yawn - stretch]
If you look at things in the sense the universe itself is God, and has no particular humanlike aspects, then there's truth to this. However, from a Western point of view, what makes God different from Existence is a 'motive'. There is no centralized motive to the universe. Therefore, Judeochristian theories of God are unlikely.

The big bang MAY be the birth of existence, or a continuation of a cycle.

Then again, I'm beginning to lean to the possibility that time is a human invention and the universe has no beginning or end. In terms of dimension, or time.
__________________
Quote:
Terence Hill, as recently confirmed during an interview to an Italian TV talk-show, was offered the role but rejected it because he considered it "too violent". Dustin Hoffman and John Travolta declined the role for the same reason. When Al Pacino was considered for the role of John Rambo, he turned it down when his request that Rambo be more of a madman was rejected.
Al Pacino = God
Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.