big bang vs universe was always here
Posted on: May 22, 2007 - 8:28pm
Offline
big bang vs universe was always here
First off let me say I am agnostic and I am here to acquire knowledge. If you have 50min to spare watch this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1357036518657151746&q=bbc+horizon&hl=en
but if you don't it basically says that the big bang theory had to have happened because of our universe growing and new galaxies are forming from energy left over from the big bang. Does this disprove the 1st theory of thermodynamics that basically holds this group together? I mean correct me if I am wrong, you guys think that the universe has existed without begining, so I dunno just help me out here...
- Login to post comments
First off, there's a lot of various opinions on here.
I also don't think the 'universe has always existed' means in it's same form. The idea is that it has always existed in 'some' form and we don't neccessarily know the answers to that, just that there are a lot of theories. They used to think that the universe perhaps springs out and back in and then bangs again, but in recent history my understanding is that the more accepted concept is that it pepetually expands.
The implication of what that means was there before the big bang, or what that means when things are so spread apart that we are no longer able to exist, I don't know the specific details. I'm far from an expert.
In general what you will get from an atheist on the topic are ideas, theories, thoughts, but not answers. Not yet.
I can't watch the video and so can't respond to it. But I can say that there is no battle between the big bang and the origins of the universe. The big bang started events into motion that formed the universe as we percieve it today. It doesn't presuppose that existance of all began at the same time with the same event.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
That was discussed here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/miscellanous_forums/6990
Steady State theory, infinite universe, has been dead for over half a century. It's main proponent Fred Hoyle, who eventually conceded defeat, was the one who gave the Big Bang its name, which is actually meant to be derogetory.
{FIXED}
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I think that's a bad link...
Fuck. I hate it when that happens
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/miscellanous_forums/6990
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Well, I would say there is no "big bang vs universe always there".
I think you were getting at we say "The big bang never happened, universe always existed". There is a difference between matter, space, and universe.
When some of us say "the universe always existed" we either mean space, or matter, or both(Most people mean both). Since gravity is the cause of the big bang, and gravity exists do to matter/mass(Since matter always existed, then so would gravity). That means the big bang would happen in multiple places in an never ending cycle.
Also, by growing it means expanding. The thing is, the first law of thermodynamics when used by common people they leave out the second part. It reads.
Matter and Energy can not be created, nor destroyed, only changed. Matter can convert to Energy, and Energy to matter. You always have the same amount no matter what. In reality in a sense when you destroy matter, it converts to energy. The matter is gone, but was replaced by a equal amount of energy(converts, said replace as an example).
Mass-Energy scale is the lowest form of anything. It is on this scale, that all forms of matter/energy are the same. There is also something called "vacuum energy" which exists on this level.
For eternal self consistancy, there is required to be 10^99 grams of mass energy(E=MC^2), in the space between a hydrogen nucleous, and the electron(10^-23 volume). There is a trillion times more energy in that little space, then in all of the stars, in all of the matter and energy for the next 20 billion lightyears. All that energy has the ability to change into energy, or matter. It would even have the ability, a single hydrogen atom to create it's own big bang, if it's vacuum energy instantly converted to matter that is(Which is another theory on how our big bang happened, we know gravity could do it, but we are not sure if it did do ours).
Oh, and scientists are so smart they are smashing atoms together to try and recreate the big bang. Yeah, you heard me.
"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken
Thank god i'm a atheist!
I enjoyed this read, thanks.
I'm quite ignorant on the topic, but don't wish to really invest into major reading on it.