" 'A Day Without Yesterday': Monsignor Georges Lemaître & the Big Bang "

[wilbur]

Dogmatic Atheism and Scientific Ignorance on the hoof again young Mr.Jones ?Perhaps you're a Deist and not a real Athiest ? Speaking from your vast experience Jones where do you think all of the matter came from ?

Baby Jesus, duh! Makes perfect sense!

[Articulate_Ape]

I'm not disapointed at all .It just reinforces my opinion of you as a bullshit artist !

Somebody has a case of the Mondays. :(

[djones520]

Somebody has a case of the Mondays. :(

I offered to let him go to the Dome with it. We'll see if he does.

[Wei Wu Wei]

The amusing thing is that the physicist who says that the universe was created from nothing, i.e., the Big Bang, is the same physicist who will tell you that the creation of something from nothing violates the laws of physics.

Update: There was no Big Bang. There was no creation. Everything has always been here.

the Big Bang theory is about how the universe started, not about what was before it.

people can speculate about it, but it's not really part of the Theory.

also, the laws of physics don't apply "before "the Big Bang, they only apply to our universe, which didn't exist pre-Big Bang ;)

[megimoo]

Baby Jesus, duh! Makes perfect sense!

Willie is regressing again,Next comes the Goos and Gahh .

[megimoo]

the Big Bang theory is about how the universe started, not about what was before it.

people can speculate about it, but it's not really part of the Theory.

also, the laws of physics don't apply "before "the Big Bang, they only apply to our universe, which didn't exist pre-Big Bang ;)

There was no 'before' the Big Bang .Nothing existed,it was the starting point. As any second year College kid knows and even Hoyle admitted !

[djones520]

There was no 'before' the Big Bang .Nothing existed,it was the starting point. As any second year College kid knows and even Hoyle admitted !

No... what every second year college kid will tell you is that it is "speculated", notice that word, that all the matter is the universe today was collected at a single point. It is from that point that the "explosion" occured. Matter was not created from nothing. Something was there.

That is the THEORY.

[Wei Wu Wei]

It's possible that our entire conception of the primary constitants of the universe are wrong.

Space, Time, Matter. the reality is there are giant gaping holes in the explanations of these phenomenon.

if we accept space, time, and matter as a given, along with the 4 fundamental forces which act within and on those first three, then the Big Bang is the best we have.

However, if space, time, and matter are actually something totally different than we've been thinking for the last century, then it could totally revolutionize our understanding of the universe.

Any serious investigation into space, time, and matter is filled with paradoxes, inconsistences, and general weirdness when you get into the real nitty gritty. physicists end up making ever more complex, ever more elaborate theories to account for these issues, but these might be an example of Ptolemization. - This is a reference to the ancient astronomy Ptolomy, who was working on a geocentric model of the universe, and kept noticing the orbital patterns of the planets had weird inconsistencies to them, at times they even appered to change direction multiple times in their orbits.

Because Ptolomy was absolutely certain that the Earth was the center of the universe, and because he was measuring these weird inconsistencies in the data, he had to account for it the only way he knew how: by making his geocentric model way more complex to account for the odd motions.

He kept the earth at the center, but added epicycles to the orbits of the planets, so that they moved in little circles within the path of the larger circle of their orbit, sort of like those old toys where you use your pencil within two circles to make patterns:

The resulting orbital model was something like this:



this is clearly WAY more complex and unnecessarily elaborate, given our knowledge of the relatively simple orbits of our Heliocentric Solar System.


The problem was his inability to look past his assumptions, and what was needed was a Copernican Revolution. From the perspective of a Sun-Centered solar system, the changing directions of the planets in the sky is easily accounted for by the relatively different speeds of the planets within their orbit, which pass each other and loop back around when viewed from earth.


This may be where we are today in modern physics with regards to the big questions of space, time, and matter. Every month it seems physicists are coming up with incredibly complex seemingly insane theories of the universe to account for the mathematical oddities and logical paradoxes that occur within our current system.

We might need a Copernican Revolution of sorts that totally re-thinks the very basic fundamental consituents of reality. It would be something extrordinarily radical, but could offer far more simple insight into whatever this reality is.

[Wei Wu Wei]

There was no 'before' the Big Bang .Nothing existed,it was the starting point. As any second year College kid knows and even Hoyle admitted !

hence the use of quotes there ;)

some people argue that the universe may be cyclical, in which case there would have been a before, in some form.

[Wei Wu Wei]

No... what every second year college kid will tell you is that it is "speculated", notice that word, that all the matter is the universe today was collected at a single point. It is from that point that the "explosion" occured. Matter was not created from nothing. Something was there.

That is the THEORY.

at that point, all of the laws of physics break down, including the function of space-time. even if we say there was a singularity to begin with, there would have been no passage of time whatsoever.