|
Post by evethor on May 16, 2010 21:42:27 GMT -5
EDITED: To put an end to the endless bikering forth and back about this being a theory or something else I changed it and now I call it a thought.
So. Big bang the begging of life as we know it. (accepted as common knowledge) But mankind often asks what came before BB?
Well here is the thought. All we know was created in BB. Is that including time? Because if that is so, "before BB" does not hold relevance. Only one thing was needed to start BB. Personally I think that was God (whatever it is) who started BB. But as I said "before" does not mean anything in this theory.
So before God is not relevant. God just is because there is no time "before" BB it just IS.
Your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by nicolii on May 16, 2010 21:49:14 GMT -5
That is including time, so yes.
But what happens when the universe stops expanding, and shrinks back into nothing? Does time end there?
|
|
|
Post by evethor on May 16, 2010 21:55:12 GMT -5
Well it just might. Or it will start again. Or it won`t stop expanding.
Who knows. We do not understand the universe yet.
|
|
|
Post by jmejia1187 on May 16, 2010 22:00:42 GMT -5
It is a hypothesis, not a theory.
A theory is the most important thing in science!!!! MORE IMPORTANT THAN FACTS. You are confusing lay man's use of the word Theory, and science use of the word theory. They have different meanings!
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 17, 2010 0:45:52 GMT -5
You assume that time was started in the big bang, and that therefore only one thing was needed to start the big bang, thus that one thing (which you arbitrarily call god) must have existed to start the big bang prior to or simultaneous with it (lacking the concept of timelessness, English grammar serves poorly here). However, your theory is needlessly complex. Rather than just saying god was, and created the big bang, why not just say the big bang was? Otherwise, what created god?
If something simply "was" and was not created, it's more rational to suggest that the earliest point in the chain we're aware of -- the singularity that resulted in the big bang -- was the thing that just "was" rather than invent our own concepts (like god) to come before it. This rule is known as Occam's Razor ("entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"). If there is no need to create a new entity (god) to explain something, then do not create the new entity.
|
|
|
Post by hey light on May 17, 2010 5:28:26 GMT -5
This is a theory. Which means it has not been proven and it is therefor not important who first thought of it. But I Will front it here. So. Big bang the begging of life as we know it. (accepted as common knowledge) But mankind often asks what came before BB? Well here is a thought. All we know was created in BB. Is that including time? Because if that is so, "before BB" does not hold freelance. Only one thing was needed to start BB. Personally I think that was God (whatever it is) who started BB. But as I said "before" does not mean anything in this theory. So before God is not relevant. God just is because there is no time "before" BB it just IS. Your thoughts? There are actually many mainstream theories that say that time existed before the big bang: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse. This is a good place to learn about the problems with the big bang and the theories that solved them. It is a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is the most important thing in science!!!! MORE IMPORTANT THAN FACTS. You are confusing lay man's use of the word Theory, and science use of the word theory. They have different meanings! The scientific definition of a theory is a model constructed from perceived data. So, theories are mostly fact.
|
|
|
Post by Trey on May 17, 2010 6:40:27 GMT -5
Lol, I like it when people say, "Oh! Well, it's just a theory".
Did you know that the concept of gravity is still a theory? Did you know Plate Tectonics is still a theory? These things are very concrete in our world, yet we still call them theories.
Anyway, "The Big Bang Theory" is actually a strange way of putting it because it was not big, it was not loud, and it's not a theory xD
I know people have already mentioned what theories are, but I wanted to add a couple of examples of theories that seem to be fact as well.
|
|
|
Post by evethor on May 17, 2010 12:49:45 GMT -5
Thanks to you all.
I love it when I can discuss with people who know more (or different) things than I do.
Regarding the singularity and Occam's razor. I clearly stated that I believe that God was the creator of the beginning. And as it seems I completely forgot about the singularity.
So to adjust what I stated. Remember I believe this I can not prove it and if I am proven otherwise I shall accept it. This is what I think. God>Singularity>Big Bang>Dense universe with a lot of radiation and chaos>And finally the universe as we know it.
Now about what might happen when (or if) the universe collapses back into a singularity. For the laughs let`s call it the Big Crunch.
Yes time will case to exist and then everything is. But there has been time, but still then it will be irrelevant since time does not exist. So anything that describes time is not relevant.
But if there is a Big Crunch we have to accept the possibility that it is possible that a new Big Bang will happen. Where time again will exist.
Then questions. Why does this happen? Why does the universe create and then uncreate matter? You opinions?
|
|
|
Post by Lex on May 17, 2010 18:19:25 GMT -5
It is a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is the most important thing in science!!!! MORE IMPORTANT THAN FACTS. You are confusing lay man's use of the word Theory, and science use of the word theory. They have different meanings! Rofl. No, not a hypothesis. It's still a theory. There's scientific and logical evidence to back it up and that's what makes it a theory. The basic theory is this: the universe is expanding. From that, there is the assumption that, because matter in motion will stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force, the universe has been expanding for quite some time. At the rate at which it is expanding, it is estimated that around 13.4 billion years ago, all known matter was packed into a single point or singularity. The expansion immediately following that is called the Big Bang (though a terrible misnomer, for it wasn't so much a bang as it was a 'whoosh'). A common misconception is that this theory is synonymous with or part of the theory of evolution. THIS IS FALSE. Another common misconception is that this theory, along with the theory of evolution, tries to discredit God. THIS IS ALSO FALSE.
|
|
|
Post by nicolii on May 17, 2010 19:25:51 GMT -5
A theory is a widely supported hypothesis backed by fact, is it not? So I wouldn't call this a *theory,* but people shouldn't be so offended by throwing words around a little. ;]
|
|
|
Post by Lex on May 17, 2010 19:34:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on May 17, 2010 21:27:49 GMT -5
I agree with what Nakor said. But besides that I wanted to point out that according to your explanation there must have been time before BB. In order for anything to do or change anything it must move in time, this meaning that nothing, not even a god, should be able to do, start, or change anything without time. ... Or that is what I understand.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 17, 2010 21:37:42 GMT -5
Big Bang Theory is a theory, because it's based on solid facts. OP's hypothesis is not a theory, because it posits something for which there is no evidence. Also, adding the word "believe" to a sentence really doesn't mean Occam's Razor doesn't apply any more. The idea of the universe merely existing is still more sound than the idea of the universe being created by god and god merely existing, even if you believe it. Occam's razor still applies. That said, you're welcome to believe God started it off if you want, I'm just saying it's not a logical conclusion.
(To be honest, it doesn't even make a particularly valid hypothesis, because there's no way to test it for truth.)
@lyserg: Actually, there is a LOT of confusion as to what may have happened during or "before" the singularity. Most scientists agree there's a good chance that the laws of physics as we know them were VERY different during the singularity. How it affects time is completely unknown. This is why a theory isn't necessarily discarded due to considering the possibility that time started with either the singularity or the big bang. (That said, if the theory isn't based on valid logic and provable premises, it can be discarded for other reasons. And we may eventually know one way or another exactly how physics worked back then, but we're a long, long way off of that.)
As for "theory" it has two meanings. A model (a sort of explanation) of events or processes based on known facts and valid logic. Theories should never contain guesses or misinformation, only what we know so far. The other use is to group together a certain type of scientific subject matter in general, such as the "theory of biology" (or "biology theory") -- not to be confused with the use of "theoretical" (such as in "theoretical physics").
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on May 17, 2010 23:25:27 GMT -5
it is possible that the big bang started time, in a sense.
It is possible time existed before the big bang, and there was consequently something else, perhaps, that caused the big bang (cause-effect hypothesis)
we'll never know though simply because we cannot look into before the big bang if there was a before. so any hypothesis on the subject cannot be a theory merely conjecture.
any argument about the hypotheses will simply be an argument of conjecture, neither side holding more weight than the other
|
|
Phat
Meteorite
Posts: 24
|
Post by Phat on May 18, 2010 0:24:29 GMT -5
Just to think of the concept of everything existing at the same time and in the same place (singularity) boggles the imagination. As far as God goes, yes a Creator is rational...after all, our imaginations either created this Creator or the Creator existed apart from the singularity...which is a whole other topic.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 18, 2010 2:18:53 GMT -5
Wait... a creator is rational because either we imagined it up or it was true? Doesn't the imagining it up part take all the validity of that statement away?
@tyme: Certainly true as things stand. I like to imagine that in hundreds or maybe thousands of years we will be so advanced in physics that maybe we'll know how such singularities operate. The more we learn about physics at the most fundamental levels (such as string theory) the more chance we have of forming valid hypotheses and perhaps a proper theory of how things could have happened or actually did happen back then. But, like I said -- that's looking centuries into the future.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on May 18, 2010 2:24:00 GMT -5
I'm gonna have to side with Nakor on the whole "it's rational because we either imagined it or it is true"
Surely I can imagine irrational things, like flying pig, or cold flame - that does not make them any more rational.
Perhaps you could clarify what you meant, phat?
|
|
|
Post by DubiousKing on May 18, 2010 8:01:16 GMT -5
I agree with what Nakor said. But besides that I wanted to point out that according to your explanation there must have been time before BB. In order for anything to do or change anything it must move in time, this meaning that nothing, not even a god, should be able to do, start, or change anything without time. ... Or that is what I understand. I could argue that God is an entity outside of time and normal existence as we perceive it, and thus does not abide by the same laws of physics that we observe everyday. He could have started the Big Bang because He interacts with our known universe in ways we can't comprehend, that are not shackled by physics and time. I don't believe it, but it's an argument I've heard before and one that can't be proven/debunked.
|
|
|
Post by evethor on May 18, 2010 10:57:00 GMT -5
Thanks to you all for valid and interesting replies. But remember I am asking for thoughts and possibilities not a clear answer (since we probably won`t come up with one)
Remember think impossibly big, do not limit yourselves to what has been proven but put forth your ideas or something insanely unlikely. I still want to hear it. ;D
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on May 18, 2010 11:12:10 GMT -5
@evethor: I understand, but at the same time ideas should be open to criticism, and if an idea can be shown as wrong or (in this case) highly unlikely, it should logically be treated as such. Also, think impossibly big is more about what we're going to do (actions), than how we wish the history of the universe was. Thinking impossibly big for this question would be more along the lines of finding some scientific way to PROVE what happened. That's both thinking impossibly big, and a very worthy goal... just one that humanity isn't quite ready for yet. (Which, of course, is why it's impossibly big, and is one of the reasons that it's a worthy goal.)
|
|