© 2006 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/curio/before-the-big-bang/
The Big Bang theory is a major marvel of science. It is a conclusion drawn from the collusion of several scientists’ work and observation that all fit together and formed a theory so vast as to explain the universe itself. No one mind can be credited with the idea; Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity served as the nidus, and Georges-Henri Lemaître built on that to propose the Big Bang. Observations of Edwin Hubble and George Gamow also played a role in writing the birth of the universe.
But the poet Edgar Allan Poe may have beaten them to it by a hundred years.
Poe was a American poet, story author, editor and critic known for his particularly macabre tales, early detective fiction, and participating in the American Romantic Movement in regards to literature.
For all of his life, Poe was fascinated with the stars and their mysterious workings. He followed the popular astronomy books of his time, but had no natural aptitude for math, nor a specific education in either astronomy or physics. Nevertheless, it the year 1848– only a year before Poe’s death– Wylie and Putnam publishing released a prose poem that Poe spent years writing; the poem was called “Eureka”, and was a dismal failure. The first printing was only 500 copies.
In an era where the predominant view of the universe was that it was static and unchanging, only the size of what we call a galaxy, and some areas were still trying to convince fundamentalists that the Earth orbited the sun, Poe made a daring move. In “Eureka”, Poe postulated that the universe had a definite beginning, and that this beginning was as a single, unique primordial particle. The primary nature of this particle, he describes, is its oneness– its Unity. Poe continues to explain how at the universe’s inception, the Unity was surrendered and gave way to the abnormal condition of many, but the lost aspect of Unity was something that allowed this particle to be divided infinitely and not to be “totally exhausted by its diffusion into space.”
Further, he suggested that the particles which arose from this division are attracted back to one another (a concept he acknowledges came from Newton), and thus inexorably pull back toward each other in defiance of the energy which first split, then repelled them. He goes so far as to say everything with a beginning must have an end, and he believed the universe would end again as a single, primordial particle regaining Unity.
But science of the era paid his discourse no mind. Perhaps it was an announcement at the beginning of his work that stayed the interest of his contemporaries: “I design to speak of the Physical, Metaphysical and Mathematical—of the Material and Spiritual Universe—of its Essence, its Origin, its Creation, its Present Condition and its Destiny.” Maybe his stated purpose was too grand for the era.
Some theorize that “Eureka” was Poe’s life work, and that he’d bore that particular piece in mind, mulling and concentrating his ideas for years before he died. In “Eureka” Poe also referred to a sequel that he never had the chance to write.
© 2006 All Rights Reserved. Do not distribute or repurpose this work without written permission from the copyright holder(s).
Printed from https://www.damninteresting.com/curio/before-the-big-bang/
Since you enjoyed our work enough to print it out, and read it clear to the end, would you consider donating a few dollars at https://www.damninteresting.com/donate ?
Interesting article. I play around with the exact same kind of thoughts.
A single particle? thats it, one measly little particle? the entire universe was made by one shitty little particle?
Also, in 1848 people were still unconvinced the Earth orbited the sun? what people were they, Canadians?
Prince.. HAHAHAHA!!!
Prince said : « Also, in 1848 people were still unconvinced the Earth orbited the sun? what people were they, Canadians? »
Considering the success of Creationism (or ID) in the United States to this day, they must have been American.
Nice shot, Gilles. The Big Bang also has roots in Indian mythology and other religions. As a theory it has more holes than a Swiss cheese and has been falsified many times over, yet many still cling to it because they feel there is no other option. Perhaps that works in politics, but it’s a lousy way to do science.
As a theory it has more holes than a Swiss cheese and has been falsified many times over, yet many still cling to it because they feel there is no other option. Perhaps that works in politics, but it’s a lousy way to do science.”
Big bang is full of holes? Like what, praytell?
Well, as you all know by now I am quite ignorant in the sciences compared to most who read and comment. There was always one point that apparently is mathematically important. It takes astronomical amounts of engergy to create “energy” and/or all the laws of physics that apparently are mathematically provable; or a stone. Just our sun which has in of itself energy spewing all over the place had to come about by energy so powerful it is almost unimaginable. Am I wrong?
HA HA. I know you are laughing. But that alone has always been an interesting point in the Universe coming to be. And please, correct me if I got this wrong. I do read a lot but it has to be in laymans terms or I can pretty much forget it. I TRIED to read that Shroederersjershkjkccbels Cat book. But it was a Smithsonian magazine and my really smart friend to explain this to me.
Jason Bellows said: “Big bang is full of holes? Like what, praytell?”
Just in case you’re NOT being sarcastic, i say this: where was the singularity?
Prince said: “A single particle? thats it, one measly little particle? the entire universe was made by one shitty little particle?
Also, in 1848 people were still unconvinced the Earth orbited the sun? what people were they, Canadians?”
Are you REALLY Prince. He lives in Minnesota and may have grown up with a mocking attitude towards the Canadians. I think it’s Minnesota. Somewhere. I don’t know. How many purple shirts do you have?
Jason Bellows said: “Big bang is full of holes? Like what, praytell?”
This is a list of the top 30 problems with the theory (sorry pdf):
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V09NO2PDF/V09N2tvf.PDF
JustAnotherName said: It takes astronomical amounts of engergy to create “energy” and/or all the laws of physics that apparently are mathematically provable.
You can’t create or destroy energy, so where did the original energies come from?
They where everywhere as far as I understand it. There was energy but no matter. [I’m not sure]
I think people here need to learn a little bit about the Big Bang Theory and, if it isn’t to much to ask, how to get rid of the Canadian and pie obsession. Its getting old.
S Mirza said: “You can’t create or destroy energy, so where did the original energies come from?”
I have a few odd theories about this sort of thing myself. One of them (I have no clue where I heard this from, perhaps someone else does?) is that energy and base particles (which is bound energy anyways) is constantly “bubbling” in and out of existance (in pair/antipair’s). Anyways, you can’t assume you know anything about something when you can’t look at it from an outside point of view, we are inside the universe thus trapped by its framework.
Sucks to be us, eh?
S Mirza said: “You can’t create or destroy energy, so where did the original energies come from?”
e=mc^2. As Phill says the energy was all contained within the mass of the entire universe which was located in a singularity.
As for the swiss cheese comment, scientists don’t claim that the Big-Bang theory is complete and perfect, which is why they continue to work on it to improve the theory and understand more about how the universe began. It wouldn’t be very good if they adopted religions menality of, ” we know all the answers and so there is no point trying to learn more,” as this would end the scientific advancement of mankind.
Talking about holes in ideas, if god is supposedly omnipotent, why did he need to rest on the 7th day? So even god needs a break once in a while? Omnipotence, yes, but with a weekend.
And before I get brought up on my use of language, I know that the bible uses capital letters to refer to ‘God’ as a form of glorification. I choose not to as I don’t care to idolise what I don’t believe in.
bernietbb said: “Just in case you’re NOT being sarcastic, i say this: where was the singularity?”
It seems that you don’t understand what Big Bang is. It is not a religion, and doesn’t claim to have all the answers. It doesn’t claim to know the nature of the sigularity, nor where it was. What it claims is a working mathematical model of how the universe evolved since the Planck epoch (10^-43 seconds after event).
And there are still problems in Big Bang therory, but none (even those listed in the linked PDF) are fatal. They’re just questions. For example: there are indications that as science fuses the studies of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory the need for dark matter may be negated. Question answered. Then, as science is wont to do, it will tackle the next question. It’s not simple, it’s not quick, and one thing I love about science is that when it’s wrong, it has no trouble going back and making it right.
Edgar owns.
Stuart, where did you get the idea that I was defending a god? Who said that this was an either-or dichotomy of “Big Bang or God”? I was calling them the same thing.
Jason, the age of the universe is enough of a problem to falsify the Big Bang. The redshifting of distant galaxies, as observed by Hubble and others, was assumed (and not by Hubble) to be due to the Doppler effect. It turns out that there are very “near” objects with very high redshifts.
JustAnotherName, math is never “proof.” It is nothing more than a language used to describe the universe. When the universe turns out to be different, then the math must change. In the case of the Big Bang mathematical acrobatics are used to “save the phenomenon,” like Guth’s inflationary model, or the notion of dark matter to salvage the unproved assumption that gravity is the large scale binding of the universe. And if the likes of the Webb telescope ever sees beyond the expected wavefront of the Big Bang, there will be an excuse for that, too.
AzureKevin said: “Edgar owns.”
Thank you, you’re not so bad yourself.
Is this another case of say good guessing? I mean I suppose its all good for someone to guess (scientifically or not) that yes well, were made up of atoms… teeny tiny particles that you can’t see. Sounds like luck to me… Maybe he hallucinated and created this like the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the galaxy guide… but instead of LSD…. Pie
Stuart said: “Talking about holes in ideas, if god is supposedly omnipotent, why did he need to rest on the 7th day?”
That is a misconstrued statement and can be answered very logically. The misunderstanding comes from bad transliteration. When being rendered from the original Hebrew texts, the King James version goes: “And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.”
In this, rest does not really refer to being weary. The Hebrew word “shabath” can be translated into 68 different instances, and out of those instances, only 7 refer to actual ‘resting.’ “Shabath” actually refers to ceasing something (with 21 instances for ‘cease’), and bringing something to an end. The correct way to read the passage would be: “He blessed the seventh day and set it apart as a special day, because by that day he had completed his creation and stopped working.”
I hope that clarifies it.
Pwned (I love being childish)
The lovely thing about scientific models is that they are NOT religions. The Big Bang may be right (in some form), or wrong, but we don’t worship it. It is, however, unlikely to change in its major features until someone comes up with a better model, backs it up with good data, and convinces enough other people in the field that it’s a better model. Science tends to be conservative with its major models – holes, even big ones, will be patched, rather than throwing the model out, until there’s a better replacement available. Kind of like how you keep repairing the old clunker until you can get a better car. You don’t just throw it out and walk. Even a flawed model is better than tossing one’s hands up in the air and saying “Insert miracle here!”
Why does everything have to be science or God? Who ever said that the idea of 7 days (when written in the bible) was first of all: that God used 7 earth days (maybe God’s language just translated it into words the writer could grasp, try grasping the idea of eons when you still think that 40 is an old man).
Or that the writers of the bible didn’t make it a better unit.
There are many things that are in the bible (that really must be taken figuratively (sp)) that can be explained with science.
Isn’t science just explaining, and putting labels on the way the universe works?
if God made the universe, then why would he even bother to make rules for it and then break them? What God did and does would be within the rules of the universe because he made it. He doesn’t have to make miracles, he made everything. This is his house he can decorate it how he wants. Miracles “back in the day” would even be talking to someone on the phone.
Sorry for the rant; I am just so tired of it being: either everything is God, and therefore unexplainable, or hey since it fits the laws of nature God sure as heck had no part in it.
What are we trying to say here? God doesn’t like his universal laws?
in a nut shell: the big bang could be God created the universe (with the big bang).
Cynthia is absolutely right. A lot of people have this idea that if there’s a hole in a theory, the whole thing has to be thrown out. WRONG! You can’t possibly have a complete working theory the first time it is formulated. That’s why you test it and try to confirm it. If there’s a problem, you find the source of the problem and you either patch up the theory to take it into account (This is what relativity did to Newton’s laws), or come with an entirely new theory (Quantum Mechanics). Repeat.
I heard a good quote about this from, ironically enough, the director of the vatican observatory, that went something like this: If you condense the history of the universe into a year, modern science appears in the last second. You can’t learn about everything from that year in that one second. You just have to give science more time.
We may not know how it started, but we surely know how it’s going to end…
scarr:
Hit the nail on the head! I often wonder myself, why people choose mutual exclusion as the only way to look at science & religion. Science is a tool, nothing more, nothing less. Religion is a personal belief. One can have a belief, yet use right tools for the job.
Some of the greatest minds have resorted to belief, when their thinking was limited. This does not imply that they stopped working, or that they lost the will … at least in the case of Einstein, it was his awe of the Universe and his personal struggle to find God, that produced some of the most groundbreaking discoveries to date.
Gilles said: “Prince said : « Also, in 1848 people were still unconvinced the Earth orbited the sun? what people were they, Canadians? »
Considering the success of Creationism (or ID) in the United States to this day, they must have been American.”
haha, got ’em.
Prince said: “A single particle? thats it, one measly little particle? the entire universe was made by one shitty little particle?
Also, in 1848 people were still unconvinced the Earth orbited the sun? what people were they, Canadians?”
Ohhh Prince, one of these days you’re gona get decapitated with a hockey stick.
Oh dear. As soon as I read the first sentence I knew this was going to turn into a big God Versus Science argument.
I completely agree with Cynthia. And also with scarr; I may not believe in God, but I don’t see why it has to be an either/or thing.
Regarding the sentence beginning with “Perhaps is was an announcement…”, I believe the “is” should be “it”.
Absolutely. If God made the universe, than what is true – is what God did. There is no way possible to learn the truth about how the universe came to be, and have it be contrary to God. In my experience those who feel the two are incompatible either don’t believe in God (which is fine), or don’t understand or trust the scientific method (which is a bit more problematic).
bernietbb said: “Just in case you’re NOT being sarcastic, i say this: where was the singularity?”
…everywhere, since the only thing that existed was it.
S Mirza said: “You can’t create or destroy energy, so where did the original energies come from?”
It is my understanding that the Big Bang theory only talks about time from the event (“t = 0” if you will) onwards, and doesn’t in any way attempt to explain why there was energy in the first place. It’s not claiming to be a theory to explain everything, and it sure is a hell of a lot better than any other theory going around.
Metryq said: JustAnotherName, math is never “proof.” It is nothing more than a language used to describe the universe. When the universe turns out to be different, then the math must change. In the case of the Big Bang mathematical acrobatics are used to “save the phenomenon,” like Guth’s inflationary model, or the notion of dark matter to salvage the unproved assumption that gravity is the large scale binding of the universe. And if the likes of the Webb telescope ever sees beyond the expected wavefront of the Big Bang, there will be an excuse for that, too.”
Thanks. You more correctly stated what math does. It is a language. And I guess sometimes the language needs more letters or words to either support a theory or debunk it.
bug said: “…everywhere, since the only thing that existed was it.
It is my understanding that the Big Bang theory only talks about time from the event (“t = 0″ if you will) onwards, and doesn’t in any way attempt to explain why there was energy in the first place. It’s not claiming to be a theory to explain everything, and it sure is a hell of a lot better than any other theory going around.”
Excellent comment. It does help me to know what people are trying to explain with the Big Bang. Is the theory correct? Some say yes, others no. I really don’t claim to know scientifically how the Universe occurred. I rely on the scriptures; and obviously I believe God created the Universse. Isaiah 40:26 – “Raise YOUR eyes high up and see. Who has created these things? It is the One who is bringing forth the army of them even by number, all of whom he calls even by name. Due to the abundance of dynamic energy, he also being vigorous in power, not one of them is missing.
I like how people try to cite “proof” as to why the Big Bang theory is void. Could I see “proof” of your God? And please don’t try that ever so corny “look around at nature and life, there’s your proof” because it makes me want to scream. Thats not proof of anything.
I do not personally believe in Creationism; there are far more “holes” in that theory than there ever will be with Evolution. The mere science in this world alone contradicts creationism on it’s best day.
And Anonymous hit it on the head…we may NEVER know how it started, but I think we all have a sense for how it will end. Our nearest neighboring galaxy, Anromeda, is expected to collide with the Milky Way in roughly 4 billion years. Assuming we haven’t been wiped out by some event of nature or an asteroid collision before that, it will all end anyway.
And honestly folks, if America keeps picking fights with people over oil, a nuclear war will wipe us out before anyone has a chance to find out what we’re here for.
The bible was written by jews that run the world now!
Wow! I just now happened to step into the comment section and see quite a row as is usual with any article mentioning the Big Bang.
In response to the question: “where was the singularity” the answer is this:
It was right here. The singularity was here, there, and everywhere. The very fabric of the universe expanded from that singularity such that the distances between points in space increased in all dimensions. Thus, the singularity is not a location but a state of the universe. If that answer seems wierd, I apologize. But just because it’s hard to wrap the human mind (that is accustomed to distances and locations) around the idea of an expanding universe does not mean the Big Bang is untrue. Instead, if it’s hard to understand, that should be cause for more reading on the subject so that you can understand it. Science and reality are wonderful mysterious things.
In response to Bollo’s PDF, here is my reaction (as a PhD student with a degree in Astrophysics) to each of the items (yes, to each and every one). My broad reaction is that a lot of the supposed “problems” are really just fancy talk and selective citations. Science always disagrees on ideas, but disagreement on specifics does not imply difficulty with the whole. Also, some of these problems are really practically jargon-laced flim flam. Anyway, here it is, a complete rebuttal:
1) Untrue- scientists would accept a static universe if it fit models, we all want the universe to be a nice cozy place that doesn’t end in destruction or other worse fates.
2) Untrue- the cosmic microwave background fits the idea of a Big Bang theory to a remarkable precision, even the lumps and bumps in its intensity match theory to an astonishing degree. The latest measurements also support the idea of cosmic inflation.
3) Untrue- heavy element abundances are dictated by stellar neoformation (i.e. supernovae). The first 3, Hydrogen, Helium, and Lithium, are predicted to considerable accuracy by the Big Bang.
4) Untrue- the large-scale structure of the universe has been modeled extensively and is consistent with our current understanding of the nature of the universe (75% dark energy, 20% dark matter, 5% normal matter, approximately)
5) Coincidental- quasar brightnesses are not “exactly” the same at all redshifts, and it is VERY likely that quasars have dimmed over time as the material that fed them was consumed.
6) Experimental error- the ages of globular clusters are inferred from the concentrations of heavy elements (i.e. anything more than lithium) in their spectra and from a rather complicated line of reasoning related to the color ratios of stars in the clusters. However, it is likely that globular clusters evolved differently than standard stars in the stellar disk because of their very close proximity to one another. Thus models developed and tested on disk stars would not be immediately valid in globular clusters.
7) Can’t say- I’ve not heard this before, and the description is poor. It is likely to be something resolved once better surveys of the universe have completed.
8) Not a problem at all- there is absolutely no problem with the fact that the universe is dominated by dark energy and dark matter. Just because we don’t have them here on Earth doesn’t make it not true. In fact, this is likely to be one of the most exciting and fascinating parts of the Big Bang theory once it is fully understood.
9) Untrue- there is no disagreement between early galaxy formation and the Big Bang theory. A previous result from the WMAP satellite team measured a surpsingly early (200 million years too early) start to the period of stellar and galactic evolution. However, further measurements have resolved this conflict nicely.
10) Fallacy- the argument that what we observe is exceedingly unlikely is a logical fallacy. We are observing it because it occurred. Perhaps there were 10^120 other galaxies that formed and quickly dissipated. We would never know. This is not supporting evidence of a static universe at all. Also, it’s not exactly true either given recent cosmological theory and observations.
11) Untrue- the large-scale structure argument, again misrepresented and entirely untrue. While current cosmological evolution models are not perfect, there is no tremendous difference in the large scale structure observed and modeled.
12) Ridiculous argument- high energy cosmic rays (i.e. very fast moving charged particles) are not entirely understood, but are not thought to have traveled more than the 20-50 MPc declared theoretically impossible by this article. Though I am not up to date with the latest here (it’s a very fast-moving field), these are thought to be formed with the galaxy but by some not-entirely known process (perhaps related to massive black holes).
13) Not well understood- The matter/anti-matter disequilibrium is a fundamental question that is actively being researched. It is not, however, an argument against the Big Bang. It’s merely a statement of what we don’t yet understand.
14) Not sure- this argument is one that would require better knowledge of the details of the re-ionization epoch than I have.
15) Not sure- I haven’t heard this argument, either. However, arguments based on probability of observing objects in the universe are exceedingly tenuous as better observations tend to void them.
16) Untrue- this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the expansion of the universe. New space is not created by the universe’s expansion, and therefore more zero-point energy is not created. Instead, the space that already exists expands. Not surprisingly this is a hard concept to understand. Nevertheless, it is thought that the very fabric of the universe itself is expanding (and that no new fabric is being created).
17) Not sure- this is a complicated argument related to the fractal nature of galactic structure at large distances. I’m not familiar with the argument enough to say how relevant it is to this discussion.
18) Untrue- the angular velocity distribution of stars in elliptical galaxies does not remain fixed. Rather, the gas and dust in the merging galaxies provides a means for momentum exchange that allows the stable final elliptical structure to form. This argument is probably just one person’s ideas that are not generally accepted by the community nor are well founded by theory.
19) Not sure- I’ve never heard of Farady rotation, but this argument sounds a bit esoteric. Chances are it is observational or theoretical error.
20) Untrue- since this article was written, the WMAP satellite released data that superseeded the very limited Boomerang set (obtained in a high-altitude balloon in Antarctica). There is no disagreement between the acoustic peaks in the microwave background and those expected by the dark energy/dark matter dominated universe.
21) Untrue- redshifts are not quantized in any fashion. This is ridiculous.
22) Misunderstanding of theory- galactic evolution theory is independent of the Big Bang theory and is significantly less mature. Quasars are not completely understood, but in the time since this article was written and the present, a lot has changed. Modern galactic evolution theory suggests that quasars do indeed take a while to form (they are probably black holes with masses of several hundred million suns), so their number densities would be lower in the early universe. Then, once they’ve formed and burned for billions of years, their fuel sources would be diminished and they would appear to be less numerous in our current universe. However, a quasar is not an object, it’s a phenomenon. Yesterday’s quasars are today’s stable galactic core black holes.
23) Untrue- The temperature of the intergalactic medium is maintained by energy sources from the galaxies. Thus, as the universe expands the hot intergalactic medium gases can still be kept hot by the galaxies between them. The stability of their observed temperatures probably just indicates an equilibrium point independent of the size of the universe.
24) Untrue- there is no general agreement on whether or not the fine-structure constant should vary with time under Big Bang theory. Perhaps some scientists have suggested it, but the notion has now largely been rejected and does not indicate a problem with the theory.
25) Wha??- This is a really ridiculous load of mealy-mouthed mumbo-jumbo. The argument goes that smoothed particle hydrodynamics models (the current state of the art) are required to simulate an obseved phenomenon rather than the much simpler n-body lagrangian models. Umm, that just means that reality can’t be oversimplified. It’s actually an argument in favor of the Big Bang!
26) Untrue- emission lines are not the same as absorption lines. Just because quasars have increased metalliticities relative to our sun does not imply a problem with galactic evolution theory. Rather, it suggests that whatever is happening near quasars is capable of rapidly enhancing the metallicities of the gases nearby. This indicates a high rate of stellar formation far in excess of that observed near our quite distant sun. That’s a perfectly reasonable hypothesis.
27) Not sure- the Lyman-Alpha forest, as it is known is a complicated and rather tortuous line of reasoning. Just because it is not perfectly understood does not signal a problem with the Big Bang. Again, observations of a really big universe are likely to require a bit of time to fully understand.
28) Strange argument- while I’ve not heard this one, it is likely to be something proposed by a limited number of researchers and generally considered irrelevant. Galactic evolution is not the same as the Big Bang theory, and like I’ve said before is not that well developed. Observations that are not understood today are likely to provide tomorrow’s best evidence for the theory.
29) Strange argument- the origin of globular clusters is not something that is relevant to the Big Bang at all. Just because we do not understand them (I’m actually researching this very topic right now and will be submitting an article for publication soon in a peer-reviewed journal) does not imply a problem- rather it implies an opportunity.
30) Strange argument- I’ve never heard of blue galaxy counts, but I can say that observing something in excess of what is thought to be true is not necessarily a problem, but can be a great opportunity. Expected galactic abundances are difficult to pin down because of the weaknesses in galactic evolution theory (independent of the Big Bang), and because they require huge simplifications in very complicated processes.
umm…
Ah yes, man and those linear thought processes.
I think some of you need to look up what the word theory means;
‘A theory is a generalization about natural phenomena, it is not the final word and any theory is always open to further testing’
It’s all in the name ‘Big Bang THEORY’ hopefully no-one thinks its 100% conclusive as it is.
A nice book about the nature of science and the scientific method, and how it is different from what religion does: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0805072535
A nice book about particle physics, string theory, the big bang, and how the currently researched theories in physics interrelate: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060531088
and anyway……..
If people are saying: hey the big doesn’t work because we did this math (that is based off of this math, off of this math, of this math……), caouldn’t one of those other math’s be wrong? science is just observations based on what we have already defined. If something was defined wrong then the truth may seen as wrong. Remember we used to think the world was flat.
And, humans can’t actually picture infinity. so some things becaome to actually calculate.
I mean really, try to actually picture nothingness. Or infinty. we need limits, definitions. If it is unlimited then it is not defined and not understood fully.
bernietbb said: “Just in case you’re NOT being sarcastic, i say this: where was the singularity?”
…everywhere, since the only thing that existed was it.
Nail on the head. It was no like there was a big empty space with a particle in the center. All was the particle. empty space was the particle, matter was the particle, energy was the particle. Then God said “Shazaam” and tada universe, heavens, earth, and evrything else.
(Shazaam was just a cool word people, don’t spam me for saying that God said “Shazaam”)
and, this article is about that Poe may have thought up big bang before scientists, not if big bang is true.
” As a theory it has more holes than a Swiss cheese and has been falsified many times over, yet many still cling to it because they feel there is no other option. Perhaps that works in politics, but it’s a lousy way to do science.”
Absurd. This is the only way science works. We keep the best explanation.
For instance, why was Einstein’s work a breakthrough? Not because he “disproved” the Newtonian model, that had been done decades ago, but because he offered a better explanation.
Mr. Anthony Kendall, do we have a physicist on our hands?
You know I desperately wanted to jump into astrophysics, it just so happens I really suck at math.
Paalexan I think you and Kendall are two very smart people. Along with me, we shall forever challenge every notion on this creationism crap. I just got done reading The DaVinci Code, and if even half of what’s in there about the church is true, I will forever be a tree huggin eveloutionist. Amen.
um, guess what.
the Da Vinci Code is a book of fiction.
if you want to take it as true, then you may as well, take the bible as true.
“When I die I will rot in the ground and “Bang ” no more”. jtb
no matter what you believe regarding the beginning of the universe, i think we can all agree on one thing. edgar allen poe uses a lot of big words. seriously, i just finished reading the full text of this “poem” (so called, i believe, only because he wished it) and have now no greater understanding of what the heck he was talking about than i got from jason’s summary.
And, humans can’t actually picture infinity. so some things becaome to actually calculate.
I mean really, try to actually picture nothingness. Or infinty. we need limits, definitions. If it is unlimited then it is not defined and not understood fully.
“
Poe did, therefore he was Mad
It is not that we cannot picture infinity, we can. The mind is rooted in Maya, to see beyond Maya tears at our link to the physical cause-effect, leaving us in a limbo between substance and shadow.
or if you prefer a less metaphysical description
It takes too many brain cells to comprehend infinity, so what we have is a meltdown.
As far as the debate between science and God goes I agree with scarr.
I once saw a show on the History Channel that explained how the 10 plagues in Egypt occurred. Apparently it was all started by earth quakes. They even proved that there was a major earth quake around the time they believe the happening took place. It would take way too long to explain how everything occurred (the show was like 2-3 hours long) but i’m completely convinced. I encourage anyone to look it up and watch it.
but after they explained how everything happened and why they got into the discussion of the debate of science and God and how a lot of people would say that their findings would disprove that God exists because everything can be explained by natural occurances in nature but the fact that there was a man there to predict the plagues in the name of God to free his people leads one to believe that God just manipulated nature to do his bidding, which makes sense in my mind.
Yea I saw that History Channel thing on the plagues too. It was awesome to see science debunk things that were assumed unearthly miracles.
I don’t agree with your assumption that the man predicted them. Firstly, if I know there will be a lunar eclipse in 20 min, and no one else knows how to time those, then I could “predict” the event and take credit. People of that time didnt know nearly as much as they do now. Even just a little of our current knowledge of the world may have given this dude a precieved Oracle level knowledge. Magic of old is science of now.
Ultimately, just because I predict something in something’s name does not make that thing exist nor does it make me a profit. Future knowledge does not automatically create anything else. For instance, I predict the weather, and I am right. This does not mean I am channeling God’s mouth. Also, just because I claim I was inspired by something, does not make it so. Even more importantly, where did my prediction come from? Experience? Tools? Meterological data? Just because he made a prediction that came true, it does not negate or support any claims to God’s involvement. Even if he lifted one finger and a hundred men died, a hundred more turned to goats, and another hundred turned into purple monkey dishwashers it would not make him a vessel of God automatically.
The reason Egypt was enslaved is largely because of these jumps to God-hood conclusions. The pharoah was precieved to be godlike or sent by god and because no one said “hey what proves this?” they were enslaved. Every day I am more relaxed to see more people using logic to determine that these leaps of faith are just that. To make those assumptions are dangerous. When using logic I try my best not to jump from one conclusion to the next.
However, to be fair, to be logical and non-bias, the knowledge of how these things happened does not disprove God either. Nothing really proves or disproves God under the notions I have been told from various religions. Evidence of God is an oxymoron. There just can’t be evidence. There are just too many other things contributing to the observation to narrow it down to just “God did it” or “That is God”. Science doesnt prove things by saying “Well it could be one of these reasons, so I’ll choose the one that supports my theory.”. That is the kind of thing a statistics person would do.
Cosmological observations provide an incredibly rich set of clues to the pre-big bang universe. Do you see any flaws in: The Pre-Big Bang Universe at BigCrash.org?
… In the beginning (in the pre-big bang universe) there was only the vast vacuum of space and time. But this vacuum was not sterile, it was seething with vacuum energy. This vacuum energy field permeates and defines the universe, an astronomically large sphere of energy. And just as matter generates gravity by warping space and time, so does energy and this is the force that defines the size and shape of the universe, and also the force that bestows mass on matter…
…When a virtual matter/anti-matter pair becomes a matter matter pair, the virtual particles are no longer able to mutually annihilate and they become real, stealing energy from the vacuum energy of space. This is the mechanism of slow matter creation in the first phase of the pre-big bang universe. Over perhaps a billion billion years, clouds of matter form over the entire universe, and eventually coalesce into cosmological bodies and eventually the first pre-big bang black hole, which starts the second phase of the pre-big bang universe, fast accretion of matter from vacuum energy by black holes…
Michio Kaku’s book, “Hyperspace” does a pretty good job of explaining the big bang, etc. Not the easiest read, but I got through it; that says a lot! ;-)
http://www.dictionary.com
Worship
7) to feel an adoring reverence or regard for (any person or thing).
When one feels that a theory based on observation (usually someone else’s observations) that can be described mathematically is sufficient to warrant ridicule of other’s who do not subscribe to that exact view, I would say that they are giving that theory an adoring reverence and regard. Hence, you do worship those beliefs. Science, in many many levels BECOMES a set of beliefs for those who follow it.
I say “becomes” because science by itself does not prove, nor attempt to disprove the existence of God. It is when individuals take the collective knowledge of man and their various abilities to “mathematically” describe nature around them as supreme evidence that a God does not exist that science becomes a religion with Man’s reasoning abilities as their God. The observations and laws become their Bible with which to wip the masses of Heathens who dare look to a supreme being. No one can be better than MAN! We are the culmination of evolution the UNIVERSE over because we have been to every nook and cranny and alternate dimension as described in our string theories and found that WE are SUPREME!
Taken from another view its likes this. Supreme being from dimension X uses method Y to make universe Z. Then some sentient being sees some natural phenomena and is able to write an equation that describes it. Huzzah! There is no God because I can describe this observation!
The truth is that Science and Religion to NOT but heads. It is only when religion takes offense at an observation that doesn’t match their assumed beliefs (sorry, but many Christian beliefs are NOT biblical and ARE assumptions i.e. the method of creation is not described, it could have been done by big bang or who who knows how, so quit beign offended! This is cool stuff!) OR when an ANTI God person tries to use science as empirical proof of His non existance. In both cases both parties are simply wrong…get thee off thy high horse!
Science is great, but it can typically only attempt to describe how things behave and is considered valid when it is able to predict other reactions, etc. However, it can only theorize as to why. Describe gravity? Yes. Show why it works? No, not really. Many theories and some sound great. If we knew what gravity was and how it functions, we could start to tackle antigravity ( I cannot wait!). For most people, belief in science is belief in other people’s observations and trust in their calculations. This is the popular thing to do..whee!
Religion is purely based on personal observation. I would say that those who persue truth on a spiritual level as much as they did scientific things, they would soon observe the phenomena that so many people ascribe to…answers to prayer, enlightenment, Faith, miracles, etc. You can test religion via scientific method…only the results are not measurable by someone else. But once you have expereinced it, you won’t require someone else’s proof.
Do I really need to point this out? The Big Bang is a moot point. It has long since passed (if it ever existed) and we will never be able to reach it, even if time travel truly existed. Same with any other valid creation view. Also, Humanity will likely die before seeing the end of the universe. Any origin or end it pointless.
Finished.
I found this article from 2020 that seems to be a fair take on the Big Bang theory in case anyone is still interested (Jarvis…and me). The article’s purpose is promoting a book (not mine), but there’s good info throughout without having to buy the book.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2020/05/14/is-it-time-to-dethrone-the-big-bang-theory-heres-how-you-overthrow-it/?sh=293f4e3e20d9
Logan:
For about a day, the big news was that Webb photos stood an excellent chance of debunking the Big Bang Theory.