Da big bang

[Ferret]

Do you believe it?

gotta get this science forum rolling somehow

[Decker]

Put it like this.

There is a factory that produces blank white paper, the only paper in the whole building. Now throw in some dynamite and blow it up. Once thing settle down you'll find a brand new fresh dictionary amid all the rubble created by the dynamite and blank white paper.

On a more scientific level...no.

[Ferret]

I agree it sounds very unlikely, but unlikely things have to happen sometimes otherwise they're impossible and as many say, nothing is impossible.

Seeing as you said no, how do you think the universe came into being?

[Ironside]

Going from the scientiffic formulas, you can pretty much say that the Big Bang explains what we see in the universe most correctly, because something must explain the Hubble law (increased red-shift with increased distance) and things like the microwave radiation.

That doesn't mean that it needs to feel like it makes sence for our understanding, partically before you've gotten everything on a satifying level of understanding, because some things really doesn't, particulary in quantum physics (and that's the level the Big Bang is on). Like electrons wave-interacting with themself.

[Decker]

I agree it sounds very unlikely, but unlikely things have to happen sometimes otherwise they're impossible and as many say, nothing is impossible.

That is true but we are talking about an explosion that created the intricate and complicated world we live in. Look at how the earth sits and rotates. And degree fast or slightly tipped off balance and we're all dead. Even the slightest bump or whatever and we're kaput.

Seeing as you said no, how do you think the universe came into being?

We'll I believe in the idea of a greater being (God), who created the universe and also us. And science is a way of explaining things or trying to find out how the world we live in works. Take for instance the human body (or you). Look at how complicated and interconnected everything is. It's hard to believe that we came from fish or whatever. Yea there is some evolutionary process in the human body, as with all animals, that allow them to adapt to new surroundings. But nothing from molecules, to fish, to monkeys, to us. I believe that God created the universe, but made it so that it could function on it's own without Him having to meddle with it all the time, and a good example is that of the human race and how it has grown, expanded, and adapted with the changing earth.

Hope that was kinda clear.

O and so what do you think?

[Ferret]

Personally I cannot comprehend God, it is not within my understanding of the universe and so it logically appears to me that there is no God. I agree with the Big Bang due to things such as Red Shift, mentioned by Ironside, but the intricacy of it all does make me wonder sometimes. I suppose you could say I'm an agnostic that leans towards atheism.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I'd just like to remind everyone that while this forum has been provided for your sciency needs, it is still an offshoot of The Frontroom. As such, while it is perfectly fine to discuss the science of the big bang and the beginning of the universe in general, if this turns into a big Science Vs Religion prizefight, it will be moved to the backroom. We've done that sort of debate a million times anyway, so I hope we'll stick with the science here.

Thank you, normal service is now resumed.

[Ironside]

The thing to remember with Big Bang and science is that we're still not close (relativly) to get an explaination on what happened at time 0. And while there's certainly room for a god running Sim Universe, we're not at the point we can say what the odds is. To get closer you'll need to quantify gravity and that's what the theory of everything is about.

Or to upt it differently we're are not in the state where we can determine if the Big Bang makes as much sence as Decker's explosion or as lighting a lightbulb.

[Craterus]

Put it like this.

There is a factory that produces blank white paper, the only paper in the whole building. Now throw in some dynamite and blow it up. Once thing settle down you'll find a brand new fresh dictionary amid all the rubble created by the dynamite and blank white paper.

On a more scientific level...no.

What makes you think that the result of the Big Bang is so perfect?

Under your analogy, our universe may well be nothing more than rubble and singed sheets of paper. How can you say that what we have is so complex when you have not experienced the things that may be even more complex?

Also, it beats the idea of a perfect dictionary just popping into view? Or a perfect dictionary having existed all along (which is so logically unsound, but I won't have that argument again).

I hope this post made sense.

[Decker]

What makes you think that the result of the Big Bang is so perfect?

I'm just putting in the way that the Big Bang has been described.

Under your analogy, our universe may well be nothing more than rubble and singed sheets of paper. How can you say that what we have is so complex when you have not experienced the things that may be even more complex?

I'm no scientist or anything, but I have seen tv shows, read articles, and seen things that make me realize that things, no matter how small, all intertwine. Just look at the human body.

Also, it beats the idea of a perfect dictionary just popping into view? Or a perfect dictionary having existed all along (which is so logically unsound, but I won't have that argument again).

It's an analogy. A complex book out of simple things. Look at how the universe works or our world for that matter. It's just a simple analogy that's all.

I hope this post made sense.

I get it a lil... hope I answered well enough for ya

I'd just like to remind everyone that while this forum has been provided for your sciency needs, it is still an offshoot of The Frontroom. As such, while it is perfectly fine to discuss the science of the big bang and the beginning of the universe in general, if this turns into a big Science Vs Religion prizefight, it will be moved to the backroom. We've done that sort of debate a million times anyway, so I hope we'll stick with the science here.

Thank you, normal service is now resumed.

Well, I'll try and keep it hopefully, in the periphery.

[Sigurd]

Hey… didn’t see this until today.

Firstly I have seriously doubts about the Big Bang theory. I am not saying I have the answer to the origin of our universe either. As some of you might remember I had a discussion going on this very subject in the ‘Does God Exist’ thread.
I was merely playing an apologist there as I find religion interesting.

In truth I am an agnostic and that means I should have all such question on a pending status.
Current Science is moving away from the perfect singularity that expanded aka. Big Bang.
Other explanation caters for the red shift and the other phenomena believed to have originated in such an event. I call it an event. By doing so we are all back in the cause event, cause event and first cause, first event routine. We will run into problems. If we need an uncaused reality why can’t that be the universe itself? It was never created; it has always been in one form or another or at least a part of the multiverse.

If we take God away from the equation, we should be very open for extra terrestrial life.
Having downloaded the World Wide Telescope (Thanks Papewaio) and read about the telescopes I realized just how probable that events such as transpired here on Tellus could very well have happened in the countless other galaxies around us.
No one really knows how big our universe is, but we like to define its size. And we do so by saying – this is as far as we can see and that is what we define as the edge of our universe.
Currently that is 78 billion light-years. Yes it is defined by the Hubble telescope.
In 1995 Hubble stared 10 days on an empty spot on our night sky. What came out of that picture was an image of at least 3000 galaxies. The image is called Hubble Deep field.
In 2003 Hubble tried it again on a different patch of seemingly empty space; this time with different filters. It stared on the spot for 11 days revealing an image 78 billion light-years away (take the length with a grain of salt as claims vary). This image contained at least 10 000 galaxies.
If we consider that our galaxy the milky way to have at least 500 000 000 000 solar systems with potential planets like our solar system, it will dawn on you the staggering numbers that lies around us on every pixel of dark space we can see on the night sky. That everything was contained in a perfect singularity at plank time is in my ears sure lunacy.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Andres]

Well, this is the science forum, so I don't understand what God is doing here

I for one, must admit that I don't know too much about this Big Bang theory.

What made scientists come to this conclusion?

Is the universe, according to scientists, still expanding after the big bang?

Which tools/methods do scientists use to measure this?

Will the universe one day, start getting smaller again? I mean, will it implode, only to explode (a new big bang) once again? Is it possible that there is a gigantic perpetuum mobile of imploding/exploding (Big Bang) of the universe?

According to scientists, does the universe stop? Is there a limit? Is that limit all planets, rocks, stars, whatever is floating around and beyond that, there is just space, with nothing in it?

I'm intrigued by black holes, but I must admit that I don't know very much about them.

I'm really interested in all this, but never got around actually studying this, so please, if there's someone who knows alot of astrology/astronomy/physics/whichevers scientific branch studies this subject, enlighten me.

And I beg thee, keep religion out of it. We have the backroom for that

[Viking]

Do you believe it?

gotta get this science forum rolling somehow

Epic start: opening the science forum with beliefs?

Not being a cosmologist, I'll not throw in my two cents. However, as observations goes on, the Big Bang theory just gets stronger and stronger; to my knowledge, reading astronomical journals.

Put it like this.

There is a factory that produces blank white paper, the only paper in the whole building. Now throw in some dynamite and blow it up. Once thing settle down you'll find a brand new fresh dictionary amid all the rubble created by the dynamite and blank white paper.

On a more scientific level...no.

That is not a valid analogy. Some time after the big bang, matter started to codensate, creating helium and hydrogen, which in turn condensated into giantic gas clouds. These gas clouds contiuned to grow in mass until the pressure got so high in the center of mass that fusion started, and a star had been born. Some of these stars died as supernovas, and in the later stages of a supernova process, the star creates elements heavier than oxygen through fusion; elements that the everything around us are made out of.

Around newer generations of stars, the dust cloud now contains heavier elements and not just hydrogen and helium. In these dust rings, matter start to accrete producing proto planets, which in turn accrete to create planets. Provided that the correct elements are present, and that the surface conditions on these planets are favourable, life will arise.

And there we are. The text above illustrates that nothing was random; when you drop a ball, it will fall to ground because there is gravity. If you unleash a big bang given the laws of this universe, you'll end up with planets and life.