Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Now question remains; What was before the big bang? I have always wondered that.

One of the scientists involved in creating the big bang theory (who interestingly was a churchman and not affiliated with the tv show) called it the primordial egg. Cool name.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 carlos13th wrote:

Bullockist wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Rotary wrote:

I'll stick to believing in God.

That's the good thing about science.

It's true whether you believe in it or not.

Sorry champ, this is still just a theory therefore requiring you to believe in it and not necessarily true. I'll point you to this statement --->

"What else is important about the finding?
Everyone in cosmology knows — but it is not widely appreciated — that the prediction about B modes from inflation relies not just on the phenomenon of gravitational waves but on the quantization of gravity itself. Inflation assumes that everything started out as quantum fluctuations that then got amplified by inflation. So at a very deep level, this finding relies on the connection between quantum mechanics and gravity being right."

Still theory not fact. I think we are done here. If someone wants to believe in God it's up to them, if you want to believe in an unfounded theory, it's up to you.

A theory but not an unfounded one.

I get what you are saying, i was just trying to pour cold water on a whole "science is right, people who believe in god are idiots" thing that was warming up.

Bullockist wrote:


Sorry champ, this is still just a theory therefore requiring you to believe in it and not necessarily true. I'll point you to this statement --->

"What else is important about the finding?
Everyone in cosmology knows — but it is not widely appreciated — that the prediction about B modes from inflation relies not just on the phenomenon of gravitational waves but on the quantization of gravity itself. Inflation assumes that everything started out as quantum fluctuations that then got amplified by inflation. So at a very deep level, this finding relies on the connection between quantum mechanics and gravity being right."

Still theory not fact. I think we are done here. If someone wants to believe in God it's up to them, if you want to believe in an unfounded theory, it's up to you.

Sorry sport, but the old "theories aren't facts" fallacy is the worst argument you could make.

You fail to realize what a theory actually is. From the Nation Academy of Sciences: "Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

That statement you offered further supports that idea. What we know about gravity has so far be confirmed to be accurate (based on observations that support the predictions made by the theories of general and special relativity) and what we know about quantum mechanics is also accurate based on what we can observe, even though most of it is counter-intuitive to our logic. The big bang theory is supported by a massive heap of observational data from numerous fields of science, so much so that there is no real competing theory to speak of. The direct observation of B-mode polarization is just another feather in the cap, albeit a very important one.

Bullockist wrote:
I get what you are saying, i was just trying to pour cold water on a whole "science is right, people who believe in god are idiots" thing that was warming up.

You and the other fellow going on and on about rocks coming alive and other such nonsense are letting your own preconceived notions get in the way.

Belief in god does not make one an idiot; denying the wealth of knowledge science has given us is what makes one an idiot. Why someone rejects verifiable facts is irrelevant, but regardless of the reason it is still wrong. I am not an atheist, especially not a "militant" one, but I strongly oppose using a supernatural explanation to define a natural phenomena. As I have said before, that is not science.

The most importnat thing for us Nerds about this dicovery is that it now makes the possibility of multiple Big Bangs occurring and therefore the kicking off of more than one Universe, i.e Alternate Universes. The theory about such alternatives to our own world are now more plausible instead of less.

I bet evil me has an awesome goatee and stache in our Alternate Universe!

I bet Good Me doesn't have facial hair.

 Easy E wrote:

I bet evil me has an awesome goatee and stache in our Alternate Universe!

And hats are worn on the left shoulder, precariously tilted off to the side to look 'hip.' A dark place indeed.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Sorry sport, but the old "theories aren't facts" fallacy is the worst argument you could make.

You fail to realize what a theory actually is. From the Nation Academy of Sciences: "Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

That statement you offered further supports that idea. What we know about gravity has so far be confirmed to be accurate (based on observations that support the predictions made by the theories of general and special relativity) and what we know about quantum mechanics is also accurate based on what we can observe, even though most of it is counter-intuitive to our logic. The big bang theory is supported by a massive heap of observational data from numerous fields of science, so much so that there is no real competing theory to speak of. The direct observation of B-mode polarization is just another feather in the cap, albeit a very important one.


Belief in god does not make one an idiot; denying the wealth of knowledge science has given us is what makes one an idiot. Why someone rejects verifiable facts is irrelevant, but regardless of the reason it is still wrong. I am not an atheist, especially not a "militant" one, but I strongly oppose using a supernatural explanation to define a natural phenomena. As I have said before, that is not science.

Definition of can:

VERB (3rd singular present can; past could /kʊd/)

1Be able to:
they can run fast
I could hear footsteps
he can’t afford it

1.1Be able to through acquired knowledge or skill:
I can speak Italian
\
1.2Have the opportunity or possibility to:
there are many ways holidaymakers can take money abroad
\
1.3 [WITH NEGATIVE OR IN QUESTIONS] Used to express doubt or surprise about the possibility of something’s being the case:
he can’t have finished
where can she have gone?
\
1.4Used to indicate that something is typically the case:
antique clocks can seem out of place in modern homes
he could be very moody
\
2Be permitted to:
you can use the phone if you want to
nobody could legally drink on the premises

I think you have a misconception of what that important word in your definition of scientific theory actually means.
MY point is even if the math is working from a theory it doesn't mean the theory is proven. The math may work but if there are forces at play within the math that you are not aware of yet , but at the moment do not have the understanding of their interaction it does not make a theory true. Once you can explain WHY something happens then you are getting a lot closer to proving something. Having a figure that fits into a present theory does not make it true.

feth I remember when dark matter was in it's infancy and thought of as an idea that was totally out there, nowdays it is far more readily accepted. What happened to all those other theories concerning things related to dark matter, have they been disproved? Nope they are still there and even though held in less esteem are just as worthy an idea as dark matter.

Theories are disproved. That's what makes science more valuable than religion for explaining the physical nature of the universe, on the other hand for explaining humans metaphysical needs and wants religion will always outstrip science. They each occupy a valuable place for humanity.

 Minx wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
As we now have signs of 'gravity waves' can be deduct direction and bearing and locate the regional site of the Big Bang?

It's a bit like this:

Thankyou helpful images.

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Thank you, which makes the crowing on the OP irrelevant, and turned a cosmology thread into a bash religion thread. Not a good idea.

As we now have signs of 'gravity waves' can be deduct direction and bearing and locate the regional site of the Big Bang?

Fixed that for you.

Isn't cosmology a subset of astronomy, especially as it involves 'stargazing' to get results as this research has done?

 Corpsesarefun wrote:

The original site of the big bang is, by definition, everywhere in the universe. The big bang is the idea that at one point in time the entire universe was condensed into one point in space that has since expanded out, the inflation of a balloon that Minx posted is a helpful analogy though obviously isn't perfect.

Question, if we take a balloon analogy, are we all riding the shockwave of the expanding universe like the skin of the balloon? Is there anything inside? Are there ever coordinate inside which marks the original location of the big bang/epicentre of the universe?

Bullockist wrote:

Definition of can:

VERB (3rd singular present can; past could /kʊd/)

1Be able to:
they can run fast
I could hear footsteps
he can’t afford it

1.1Be able to through acquired knowledge or skill:
I can speak Italian
\
1.2Have the opportunity or possibility to:
there are many ways holidaymakers can take money abroad
\
1.3 [WITH NEGATIVE OR IN QUESTIONS] Used to express doubt or surprise about the possibility of something’s being the case:
he can’t have finished
where can she have gone?
\
1.4Used to indicate that something is typically the case:
antique clocks can seem out of place in modern homes
he could be very moody
\
2Be permitted to:
you can use the phone if you want to
nobody could legally drink on the premises

I think you have a misconception of what that important word in your definition of scientific theory actually means.
MY point is even if the math is working from a theory it doesn't mean the theory is proven. The math may work but if there are forces at play within the math that you are not aware of yet , but at the moment do not have the understanding of their interaction it does not make a theory true. Once you can explain WHY something happens then you are getting a lot closer to proving something. Having a figure that fits into a present theory does not make it true.

feth I remember when dark matter was in it's infancy and thought of as an idea that was totally out there, nowdays it is far more readily accepted. What happened to all those other theories concerning things related to dark matter, have they been disproved? Nope they are still there and even though held in less esteem are just as worthy an idea as dark matter.

Theories are disproved. That's what makes science more valuable than religion for explaining the physical nature of the universe, on the other hand for explaining humans metaphysical needs and wants religion will always outstrip science. They each occupy a valuable place for humanity.

Is this some sort of attempt to backtrack?

A scientific theory can be a fact and a theory at the same time because nothing in science is absolute. You still don't understand what a scientific theory is and you don't have a "gotcha" because the definition I provided has the word "can" in it. Sorry pal, try again.

Your understanding on dark matter is sadly incomplete as well, so you should really refrain from using that to try and prove your point.

 Orlanth wrote:


Question, if we take a balloon analogy, are we all riding the shockwave of the expanding universe like the skin of the balloon? Is there anything inside? Are there ever coordinate inside which marks the original location of the big bang/epicentre of the universe?

I'm going to start off my answer to this with a butchered Terry Pratchet quote: "It's difficult to explain Quantum (mechanics) in a language developed by monkeys, to tell other monkeys where the ripe fruit is."

Now, to try answer your question about where the location of the big bang is. It's everywhere. It's next to your desk, it's in my office other side the planet, it's in Emperor T'Laxuminica'bys throne room in the Andromeda galaxy, it's in UDFj-39546284. When the Big Bang happened, it created everything, including spacetime. What it did was expand spacetime, not expand into a preexisting empty "spacetime". Whats beyond the outer shell of our galaxy (if there is one), is a giant unknown which we may never be able to answer, if you consider that the farthest galaxies could be racing away from us at greater than light speed, or at least the spacetime they are part of to keep Einstein happy. (I struggle with this part myself).

For your balloon question. If you look at the large scale structure of the universe, you'll notice it's pretty uniform in it's distrubution of matter and energy (the blank "line" running through the middle is due to us not being able to study objects through the entire disc of our galaxy IIRC). So to continue with the balloon analogy, imagine that ladies balloon is filled with billions more balloons and their all expanding away from each other, not away from a central point (the location of the galaxies we have studied is independant from their redshift relative to us IE those galaxies on our left are not necessarily travelling faster away from us than those above us etc).

I hope this makes sense!

The Big Bang isn't next to or on my desk; my desk is for my stuff only. It can keep its universe creating paws off my stuff!

 Rotary wrote:
Okay, then tell me which parts of the cell were evolved and which were instantly created during big bang. I'm sure you are aware the majority of them are all required to exist at the same time or the cell would die.
Also how much heat and time does it take to turn a chemical or a piece of matter into a living cell and why can't we reproduce it.
Also, where did all the stuff that created the big bang come from. I guess it just decided to exist.
The big bang theory can be viewed as magic. With enough time anything is possible.
So I'm going to put this rock on the table and in a million years it will grow legs, a stomach and a brain. Oh I forgot a mouth, shoot, it died. I guess it had to have those parts all at once, not evolve them.
Feel free not to talk down to me next post,
But you are wrong about one fact, the burden of proof isn't on me at all, that's why its called faith. Obviously that drives you crazy.

Really, you're going with this? Ok, in answer...

Canon Fodder - 2000AD Comic character

The story opens with a badly wounded Canon Fodder being confronted by Lucifer who then apparently finishes him off. It then cuts to a flashback with Dr. Watson discovering that Sherlock Holmes and Professor Moriarty have killed themselves in a suicide pact, in order to go to heaven and kill God for not appearing on Judgement Day. Fodder and Watson recruit Mycroft Holmes (who is portrayed as a psychopath similar to Hannibal Lecter), to get them to heaven before Holmes and Moriarty. However, Holmes and Moriarty were themselves too late, and discover that Lucifer has overthrown and killed God. Fodder and his comrades arrive on the scene to be confronted by Lucifer, whose demons kill Watson and Mycroft and rip off Fodder's hand. As Lucifer is about to finish Fodder off, God unexpectedly returns. He kills Lucifer and asks why he shouldn't wipe out mankind, but Fodder points out that without mankind, God will never find the answer to who created him. The story ends with Dr Watson completing his entry in the Purgatory journals as the last adventure of Sherlock Holmes.

It's a valid point. You can't dismiss the Big Bang this way and then just accept that your God just "happened"

 Rotary wrote:
Okay, then tell me which parts of the cell were evolved and which were instantly created during big bang. I'm sure you are aware the majority of them are all required to exist at the same time or the cell would die.
Also how much heat and time does it take to turn a chemical or a piece of matter into a living cell and why can't we reproduce it.
Also, where did all the stuff that created the big bang come from. I guess it just decided to exist.
The big bang theory can be viewed as magic. With enough time anything is possible.
So I'm going to put this rock on the table and in a million years it will grow legs, a stomach and a brain. Oh I forgot a mouth, shoot, it died. I guess it had to have those parts all at once, not evolve them.
Feel free not to talk down to me next post,
But you are wrong about one fact, the burden of proof isn't on me at all, that's why its called faith. Obviously that drives you crazy.

1. Parts of cells weren't created during the Big Bang - quarks and atomic components were.
2. Applying electricity to Nitrogen, Carbon and Hydrogen has been shown to form amino acids, the building blocks of DNA/RNA. The problem being is there has only been proper scientfic theory for a few hundred years to try and observe and duplicate this, the earth has had several billion years of random occurences.
3. As far as I'm aware there's no real answer for this, but certainly falls under the same type of question if you asked "who created god?"
4. Magic is unexplained science, but with enough time, anything within the laws of physics can happen.. not just anything.
5. I imagine you're being facetious/rhetorical with the whole rocks with legs thing, so I won't bother
6. The burden of proof lies with the person who created the theory or notion. If someone says God exists, then it lies with them to prove it. If another man says we are made up of subatomic particles, then it's also up to them to prove that.