Underground Knowledge — A discussion group discussion
FRINGE SCIENCE
>
The Big Bang Theory - Debunked?
From a Scientific POV:1. The Universe could not have begun with one entity - no action is possible with one.
2. The first entities would have to be embedded with attributes and able to perform certain actions.
3. If the universe is a complexity it had to have been designed with a program.
4. [3] would require a programmer that was precedent of the Big Bang.
The Un-Scientific POV.
By an unlimited supply of time, particles banged randomly into each other till one day your PC happened. There was no PC Creator. Once there was no sciences, then like your PC, one day science happened.
John wrote: "Joseph,Most of what you say about mathematics is not true. If you did maths at university (as I did) you would have learnt in pure maths that 1 has an absolute identity and that we can prove that ..."
Let us define what is meant by a pure 'ONE'. It refers to a lone singular entity with no internal or external components yet existing. Here, you cannot have:
UNIVERSITY; LEARNT; PROVE; MATHEMATICS; YOU; I; etc, etc.
IOW, verbs, nouns and adjectives are out. Now, there is no such thing as a + after a 1.
I still say we need to steal one of those (classified) time machines and travel back to one minute before the Big Bang!There are actually Quantum Physics theories about infinite realities...Infinite parallel universes, infinite time and infinite space...If these theories are true, it boggles the mind.
Personally, my gut instinct tells me infinity is more likely than the finite concepts like the Big Bang Theory that are currently being put forward.
Harry wrote: "Living in a material world of Something means we can't even begin to comprehend Nothing. We can only see it as an opposite of Something, but not as anything in its own right.The dichotomy of such..."
Speaking about "nothing" (something I excel in) a learned member of the Science Teacher Network group I belong to on LinkedIn.com has this to say about that pehonomenon or state:
"The 'number' 0 was created for NOTHING, and made a huge difference in our mathematics. I believe it is to make a beginning, so that we can compare any evidence to it, and modify the initial statement to hopefully end up with solution."
Not sure why I decided to share this with you me ol' mate...other than I think he's onto something. Not sure what. Perhaps it's nothing.
I've got a question and didn't know which thread to put it in, so thought I'd resurrect this thread, seeing as it's about as coherent as the dinosaur one.Anyway, I have a question for the scientists of the group. (Er, that'll be John then!)
Do we know if human beings have always seen in colour? If so, how do we know it? (Just a question that cropped up in my mind that I want an answer to!)
Ta.
According to Genesis 1, in the beginning, the universe was formless and empty darkness. It was God who created the universe (the Heavens and the Earth).I-Ching, or The Book of Change, says, “The Great Ultimate, Tai Ji (Tai Chi), has changes which give rise to the Two Elements. The Two Elements give rise to the Four Phenomena, and the Four Phenomena give rise to the Eight Hexagrams, and the Eight Hexagrams give rise to all events and things.”
Tai Ji (Tai Chi), the Great Ultimate, actually means the earliest, beginning of all events and things. Everything came from one (Tai Ji), to two (elements), to four (phenomena), to eight (hexagrams), to eventually sixty-four (hexagrams)… and to all events and things.
The Big Bang was the event that led to the formation of the universe, according to the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe’s early development (it is also known as the Big Bang theory or Big Bang model). According to the Big Bang model, the universe, originally in an extremely hot and dense state that expanded rapidly, has since cooled as it expanded to the present diluted state, and continues to expand today. Based on the best available measurements as of 2010, the original state of the universe, when the Big Bang occurred, existed around 13.7 billion years ago.
In Ancient Chinese legend, it was Pangu who started the universe from an initial formless state.
The legend of Pangu is similar to the Biblical story of the Creation. Pangu’s story echoes some elements of the Big Bang theory and the I-Ching (Yi-Jing).
More details can be read in my book "The Queen of the South in Matthew 12:42" Chapter 4.
Harry,My ears must have been burning!
Regarding the question of whether humans have always seen in colour, my guess would be a resounding "yes".
It seems a curious question to ask, though.
I am not a biologist, so you would need confirmation from that source. Nonetheless, I like to speculate. Colour vision requires a larger brain to interpret the extra information. In the past our ability to avoid predators has come about through applying our wits to the environment we find ourselves in. Most animals don't have the brains for this. Dogs for example rely more on smell than vision and only limited colour vision. Many other animals do have colour vision, even birds and insects. They can even see into the UV, which is more than we can.
So, in short I would say that all the properties of vision are fundamental to our species or group of species, so yes, humans have always had colour vision.
I have just checked on Wikipedia, and colour vision is determined by different types of detectors in the eye. We have 3 (as do apes and marsupials), whereas birds insects and reptiles actually have 4. This means the latter can see over a wider range of wavelengths than us. Most mammals have only 2 detectors so have limited colour range.
By the way, our concept of colour vision is very anthropocentric. Because of our three different detectors, we think of three "primary" colours. In actual fact light consists of an infinite number of different wavelengths as demonstrated by Newton. As a result of our limited vision, for example, we can't tell the difference between combined green and red versus yellow.
I think colour is very badly taught in schools. We are somehow taught to think that two primary colours added together gives another colour (such as in the above example). But it doesn't on a fundamental level: it's just our limited vision that is compromising our understanding.
John wrote: "Harry,My ears must have been burning!
Regarding the question of whether humans have always seen in colour, my guess would be a resounding "yes".
It seems a curious question to ask, though.
I am..."
Hey John,
Many thanks for taking the time to answer. I'm aware of some of those very basic things like the primary colours and green/red vs yellow, and I've always thought it interesting that we're one of the few species who see in colour. And, yes, I'll need to research the topic further. (Do we have any biologists in the group?)
But basically, we don't know then! (It would seem.) I was thinking in terms of how much we base our understanding of the intelligence on 'ancient humans' (without getting into specific Darwinian affairs) based on their brain size and yet we don't have brains to study, so how do we know they weren't wired entirely differently (and perhaps 'more intelligent'), but, yep, wrapped up in that was my thought about colour. Surely we can't know if at some point our eyes evolved into seeing colour, as we have nothing to base it on. Maybe humans only started seeing colour in 10,000 B.C for instance.
If anyone has any more answers I'd be glad to hear them!
Thanks again for your input John. Knew I could rely on you!
Soleilmavis wrote: "According to Genesis 1, in the beginning, the universe was formless and empty darkness. It was God who created the universe (the Heavens and the Earth).I-Ching, or The Book of Change, says, “The G..."
I knew my resurrection of this thread would gain some new insight on the actual topic question! Cheers Soleilmavis for your thoughts. :)
John, I'm now claiming you as my own personal scientific advisor, so another question for you:In the recent Cohen brothers' series Fargo, they mentioned that we see more shades of green than any other colour. Is this true? Any time I attempt to look it up online I can only find speculation.
It wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't true (despite it making sense from a hunter past) because the Cohens also began every episode of that series with 'This is a true story based on real events....' etc. which was simply a lie.
God in Genesis 1, Tai Ji, or The Great Ultimate, in I-ching, the great energy in the Big Bang theory, and Pangu in Ancient Chinese legend, have striking similarities.
Harry,Let's not get too proud of ourselves as a species! There are plenty of other animals that see in colour - even better than ours, like birds! And I always thought that the expression "bird brain" was an insult to birds! Crows and many other birds are quite smart really.
I'm honoured to be your (and others!) scientific advisor. Just as long as the cheque is in the post....
Anyway, regarding greens, I suppose it is possible, although I have no evidence. Perhaps the argument is that green is in the middle of the spectrum and triggers a response in each of the colour detectors for red, green and blue, whereas blue would trigger a very weak response in the red detector and vice versa.
It would certainly make some sense to be more sensitive to different shades of green as it would help us to distinguish between different objects in the natural world which are perhaps predominantly green (leaves, grass etc.).
Cheers John. I really need to read up more on this stuff. I mean- it's possible, at least, ain't it, that we once lived in a black and white world. (The Wizard of Oz beginning springs to mind!)I agree 100% with you regarding "Let's not get too proud of ourselves". I don't see humans as anything particularly special- in the way that many would have. Was just pointing out the majority of creatures see in black and white (I think I'm right in saying).
Many thanks for your input John- it's much appreciated. I've donated your cheque to the Illuminati Spiritualist Association For Illuminated Madmen, as I knew that's what you'd want.
"In the recent Cohen brothers' series Fargo, they mentioned that we see more shades of green than any other colour. Is this true? Any time I attempt to look it up online I can only find speculation."Any opinion that we also dream in this same shade of green?
Harry,I'm sure your nominated "charity" would be very pleased!
I don't think we would ever have lived in a black and white world. We would have needed plants to generate the oxygen that we need to live. Oxygen is reactive and taken up in minerals. Many planets have a CO2 atmosphere from for example venting volcanoes. Plants use that CO2 and change it to oxygen.
One of the ways of seeking life on planets in other star systems is to look for gaseous oxygen. Another thing to look for is copious ozone. Ozone is generated naturally from O2. So the plants converted CO2 to O2 as the waste product. The waste product got converted partially to create our ozone layer. That meant that surface Ultraviolet levels were no longer lethal and life could move out of the oceans on to the land.
I can't remember the timing I think 1 billion years after the formation of the Earth for land creatures to start evolving (or was it 1 billion years ago?).
Anyway, back to colour, most mammals see more than black and white. Their vision is dichromatic (two colours), ours is trichromatic (3 colours). "Black and white" would be described as monochromatic. So dogs and cats for example, see washed-out colours - blues and yellows. This is explained here:
http://www.colormatters.com/color-mat...
I see now that is for children, but we're all children at heart!
Wikipedia is pretty good about most science things. I know it has a bad press (sour grapes I suspect), but it is absolutely accurate in my area of expertise(ozone science/climate).
I read newspaper articles about things to try to be better informed. However, those same newspapers write garbage about my old field of research. I conclude that newspapers are not to be trusted on anything.
I have the opposite view of Wikipedia. If I had any money, I'd give them some!
John, truly thanks for that message as you stumbled upon a few things that I've been wondering about lately and I most certainly need to investigate more. But I still don't get how: if ultraviolet, for instance, was needed- and therefore existed- in that way described, it doesn't mean it actually had to look ultraviolet, because that's still in the eye of the beholder surely? Or am I missing something? In an original black and white world, ultraviolet would have just been a shade, then when (whatever) creatures began to see in colour, ultraviolet became seen in its current sense. Am I making any effing sense? :)
It used to be well known that more people dream in black and white than colour, but I don't know if this still holds true. Do we dream in green? I dunno Crusaderadio!
Now, the idea that deep red shouldn't be in our spectrum and that magenta doesn't exist outside of perception I find equally fascinating...
Harry,I think colour perception is to some extent arbitrary. There is no guarantee for example that you view red or any other colour the same way as I do. We think we view things the same way, but that's because we're the same species and we use empathy. We learn that red is red by comparison when we are very young and carry that through our lives. There is bound to be some small variation in our senses, though, just like there is a variability in our respective heights.
UV is just a different range of wavelengths of light (or electromagnetic radiation to be precise). If we had a UV detector, we might visualise it in some particular way, or interpret it as a particular colour, but there is no way of knowing how we might do so. It follows that we can't really know how birds and insects view UV on a conscious level. It's different for different species anyway. Are birds conscious anyway? Insects aren't. You see the dilemma goes beyond mere vision!
I don't see why we can't dream in colour. I have serious problems remembering my dreams, though. Anything we do that has a visual connection I think would lead to the brain interpreting in colour. Dreaming is a particular type of chemical signal as we process the day's data. I don't see why this can't be a sort of visual record and hence in colour just like regular vision.
In your last remark you are introducing more complications. EM radiation is a spectrum of colours each of which has a single wavelength. Our eyes don't detect a single wavelength which would be useless, but a range for each of the "primary colours". It is the range of overlapping colours that gives our vision its colour sensitivity. So, from a mere three "primary colours" we can, with our super brains separate hundreds of different colours.
I don't know what you mean by deep red. Perhaps red with some black, which means red plus some green and blue. Magenta exists in that it is a mixture of red and blue. It's a primary colour for inks as is yellow and cyan (a sort of greeny blue). Print primary colours work differently than light primary colours because for the former it's what gets reflected that counts and for the latter its what gets transmitted. It's a complicated mess and I don't always get it right!
Magenta then if it were a light, could be separated by a prism into its two different wavelengths. The same for Cyan and Yellow. However, print primary inks reflect a range of wavelengths not just the main two.
Ultimately, you have a right to be confused, because the whole topic is a lot more complex than we are led to believe from our high school education!
PatEye wrote: "Perhaps overly simplistic, I have recently discovered that women see shades of green differently from me, a male, and that that is common."Yes, PatEye. I heard somewhere that all males over 40 are color blind. Now I realize that is extreme speculation but as I come from the home decorating field, I can assure you that it is often true.
When trying to get fabrics to be aesthetically pleasing to the eye in a room situation, one soon learns if their color sense is accurate or not. As women, we don't assume our "eye" is correct and usually run it past someone else with experience in color. Males tend to be very sure of themselves and are sometimes completely off the mark. Color doesn't have to match perfectly but it foes need to be tone correct in whatever color is chosen to compliment.
PatEye wrote: "No, not color BLIND, at least not yet. But, I do find at age 65 that where I sometimes see a bluish-grey, a woman sees green. My suspicion is that she is right, as the object in question is a leaf."HaHa, but you can get blue/grey leaves I believe. Some people ring up and ask if you have "anything" in a leaf green. Some ask for "plain" white. There are many shades of leaf green. Also, when someone says their walls are white and they want white fabric so it will match - it is impossible yo know without the paint color as there are many shades of white.
PatEye, Well done for your support of Wikipedia!
By the way, I thought it was "Shades of Grey" that women were sensitive to! [Apologies to Laureen for that.]
Your blue-grey problem may be related to cataracts. At 57 it seems that one of my eyes is starting to cloud over and I was warned that over a 10 year timescale or perhaps longer I would start to have difficulties distinguishing between green and blue. This is quite natural and there is a relatively painless fix: laser eye surgery. My father had it when he was about 70ish, so you may be due.
Whatever, if you haven't done so recently you should go to an optician to see whether cataracts are an issue.
John wrote: "Harry,I think colour perception is to some extent arbitrary. There is no guarantee for example that you view red or any other colour the same way as I do. We think we view things the same way, bu..."
Thanks for more info John. And I am confused a lot by the broad topic!
I read a few things a year or so ago about the term 'deep red' but can't for the life of me find it now, and seeing as I only understood things in layman's terms in the first place, I do need to study all this colour stuff.
The magenta thing I was referring to was this though, from Biotele.com:
"Magenta is an “extraspectral” color. Sir Isaac Newton noticed that magenta did not exist in the spectrum of colors from white light when he played with prisms. But when he superimposed the red end of the spectrum on to the blue end, he saw the color magenta (this can be done with two prisms to make two spectral spreads, "rainbows"): Magenta is the only color that does not exist as a single wavelength of light."
Harry,Biotele seems to be correct right up to the end when it says that magenta is the only colour that does not exist as a single wavelength of light. There are many such colours in everyday life. Brown for example, and grey, and trivially white. In short, any colour that is not midway between two of the "standard" colours of the rainbow:
Richard Of York Gave Battle In Vain.
As a scientist, I was always producing "false colour" images revealing the results. It was a matter of skill to decide what colours to choose. Rainbow colours were certainly popular, but other combinations were regularly used.
Apparently few people can really distinguish Indigo, by the way.
John wrote: "Harry,Biotele seems to be correct right up to the end when it says that magenta is the only colour that does not exist as a single wavelength of light. There are many such colours in everyday lif..."
Brown actually seems to be up to debate from the very little I've read! I get confused with these things! I know colour well from an artistic point of view (complimentary colours etal) but my scientific understanding certainly needs improving. Cheers John.
Pateye,The loss of colour vision due to cataracts is gradual and you will probably not notice them before significant loss of eyesight. It could be dangerous to drive for example, especially at night.
I don't know about "ignorance is bliss", but cataracts almost certainly you have. I am starting to acquire them. It's just a sign of aging and we have the technology to fix the problem, so why not do it?
I'm not sure what country you're in, but if it's the UK, then the NHS will do it free of charge. They'll even fix your eyesight while there at it so that you no longer need glasses (if you do now).
This thread seems to have got quite mixed up, but who cares? There was a comment about the universe occurring from nothing. This of course is vexing scientists at the moment. It seems that "nothing" is not consistent with quantum mechanics. So, either there was nothing and the universe suddenly appeared, or there has always something but it was initially very small. The point is nature hates a singularity (infinite density or infinite anything). So it could be that the hypothesis of a recycling universe may actually have some weight.Anyway, the zero that Lance brought up was indeed a major advance in mathematics. You can guess that the Romans were hopeless at arithmetic. Their ridiculous notation made arithmetic extremely cumbersome. The BBC until relatively recently used to date its programmes in Roman numerals, and you had about 1 second at the end of the programme to read and digest it. It was quite a challenge, especially towards the end of the last century! Nowadays I think they use modern notation and the date comes to the mind instantly. No matter, the zero is valuable as a way of placing the digits in order so that their position decided their value: e.g. 1, 10, 100. The 0s in turn multiply the number by 10 and 100. There seems to be some debate as to who invented the 0: the Arabs or Indians. Of course binary was a pretty useful invention as well, but I don't know who invented that.
John wrote: "This thread seems to have got quite mixed up, but who cares? There was a comment about the universe occurring from nothing. This of course is vexing scientists at the moment. It seems that "nothin..."Yeah, the recycling universe theory is interesting.
Is it true that the Mayans used the number zero? I've read this somewhere, but didn't know if it was true or not.
James Morcan wrote: "John wrote: "This thread seems to have got quite mixed up, but who cares? There was a comment about the universe occurring from nothing. This of course is vexing scientists at the moment. It seems..."Indeed they did James. Zero was integral to their system.
From Wikipedia:
The Maya numeral system is a vigesimal (base-twenty) positional numeral system used by the Pre-Columbian Maya civilization.
The numerals are made up of three symbols; zero (shell shape, with the plastron uppermost), one (a dot) and five (a bar). For example, thirteen is written as three dots in a horizontal row above two horizontal lines stacked above each other."
If that's true, Harry, then that's pretty advanced for an ancient civilization we are told were scientifically and mathematically "nobodies"...
James Morcan wrote: "If that's true, Harry, then that's pretty advanced for an ancient civilization we are told were scientifically and mathematically "nobodies"..."That's nothing!
:)
James,Thanks for the update about the use of zero.....
On another topic, at least the "Big Bang Theory", the show this time!
I am outraged! I will no longer be watching the programme, even though I find it entertaining at times.
I have just learnt that the principal actors receive $1 million per EPISODE!! As a senior scientist working in the USA I received that sum for 8 YEARS of hard work. The scientists that Sheldon et al. are satyrising are only junior scientists and would be on only $60-70k per annum, regardless of Sheldon's purported Nobel prize potential!
It seems that the actors have started some sort of science support fund perhaps as a twinge of conscience. One get's used to the idea of people with talent receiving large rewards, but it really takes the biscuit to be paid hundreds of times more for pretending to be a scientist than for actually being one. If you didn't know it before, there is something seriously wrong with our modern society.
John wrote: "It seems that the actors have started some sort of science support fund perhaps as a twinge of conscience. One get's used to the idea of people with talent receiving large rewards, but it really takes the biscuit to be paid hundreds of times more for pretending to be a scientist than for actually being one. If you didn't know it before, there is something seriously wrong with our modern society...."I agree John.
For me, I'd rate teachers and scientists as being up there amongst those who should be paid the most.
Thanks,
James
Pateye,Regarding "expanding into the world of experience", chance would be a fine thing. My experience is that employers consider scientists, and I expect teachers, to be unemployable away from their area of expertise.
Most jobs that I could easily do require an alphabet soup of trivial computer qualifications. Acquiring those qualifications would take time and the next potential employer would want a different set of qualifications. Employers want instant gratification: someone that can do the job immediately and won't question authority.
If you're already mature, you can forget changing your field of work. If you're not mature, you don't have a field of work to change.
I have been essentially unemployed since my position ended in the USA a year or so ago. I have written a few books but they haven't brought in much income. I am currently spending some time learning how to trade the financial markets, working from home. I don't have much profit yet though.
Fortunately, my wife works and I have made enough money to see me through to official retirement, but it does put a strain on my marriage.
Don't get me wrong: I'm happy enough. I'm just cynical about the needs of employers and their hypocrisies in terms of the staff they say they need.
I believe in The Big Bang Theory. Just, mine hasn't happened yet. ;)But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. 2 Peter 3:10
Also curious, can something come from nothing?
John wrote: "Pateye,Regarding "expanding into the world of experience", chance would be a fine thing. My experience is that employers consider scientists, and I expect teachers, to be unemployable away from t..."
Why not take a sales job buddy ? . It could get tough and humiliating at times but who's gonna give a rat's ass when you can earn an awful lot of money !!. One of my friends even bought a nice house from his sales commission few months back!! . I myself did a nice sales job once but got fired unfortunately (it was my fault) . Not a bad job at all...
Fay, I don't believe something can come from nothing and more importantly neither does science...except that is with the Big Bang Theory...But I'm confident that'll soon be replaced by a more logical theory...especially once this thread gets better known in scientific circles :)
James Morcan wrote: "Fay, I don't believe something can come from nothing and more importantly neither does science...except that is with the Big Bang Theory...But I'm confident that'll soon be replaced by a more logic..."Aha, alright.
Alright you guys, so I've been watching some videos, doing some research and I've gotten several points but here's one point I'm going to throw out there. Okay, so first let's start off with a smaller example, a merry-go-round. Now lets say that there's a bunch of elementary students and they want to get spun real fast on the merry-go-round (Yay, so fun) so they get these big high school football players to push the merry-go-round around really fast. So the football players are pushing them extremely fast CLOCKWISE (remember that), so fast that the kids are legitimately holding on for dear life and their legs are flying in the air, like so- http://i.ytimg.com/vi/xTWxwG7mato/hqd... . (Just the flying kid part). So here's the good part- If the merry-go-round is spinning clockwise then when the kid eventually flies off they will spin clockwise until they hit something like a tree or something like that. AKA, The Conservation of Angular Momentum. If a spinning object breaks apart, the parts of it will spin off in the same direction as the object was originally spinning.
So here it gets a little sticky. So if the universe started as a fast spinning dot then why do some planets, and moon, and even whole galaxies spin backwards? And also, if all the planets came from a big bang (Just one same dot) then why are all of them so different? Saturn is certainly different from Pluto and Mars is not the same as the Earth.
sayori wrote: "Fay, Newton sir's 1st law says that a body in motion tends to stay in motion. so if any galaxy is hit by another galaxy and if by chance the direction is reversed, then it will spin in reverse dire..."So you're saying that some planets and whatever clashed into each other which made them spin backwards???
sayori wrote: "I meant that an external force changed it's direction....... the external force is most likely supplied by crash...."I'm not following you...
To quote Tom Hanks in Big, "I don't get it."
sayori wrote: "Newton sir said that only an external force can change direction of any body in motion....and in case of any crash between 2 bodies, the 1st one will exert a force on the 2nd one and the 2nd one wi..."Alright. But what about entire galaxies that spin backwards?
question Sayori : if the universe is really infinite, would modern science have the ability to recognize that?What I mean is can most scientists conceive of infinity ?
I have heard of quantum physicists talk about infinity, but outside of that it seems like nobody mentions it...
sayori wrote: "galaxy collision can also occur....think it as a 1 body system."Alright, "I don't get it" again. What exactly might the galaxy have collided with?
sayori wrote: "James, I'm not a scientist.but I think that this confusion arises as the concept of infinity is still not clear...... it is the number which is bigger than the biggest possible thing we can think ..."
Infinity cannot be measured I assume
I think I read some ancient Civilizations had a symbol for infinity
James Morcan wrote: "sayori wrote: "James, I'm not a scientist.but I think that this confusion arises as the concept of infinity is still not clear...... it is the number which is bigger than the biggest possible thin..."
I believe the ankh and the orobouros symbols- both from ancient Egypt- are the oldest examples of the infinty/eternity symbol.
I am very pro science and believe scientists deserve more platforms to voice their theoriesHowever, I don't believe all things can be solved by science alone
For example, the infinity issue probably requires science + philosophy + other in order to solve the riddle
One weakness of Western science is it's become too isolationist
However, quantum physicists and other revolutionary scientists are beginning to change this
The future is bright!
Underground Knowledge — A discussion group
Books mentioned in this topic
The First Three Minutes: A Modern View of the Origin of the Universe (other topics)STOPP (Stop the Organized Pill Pushers) Now (other topics)
STOPP (Stop the Organized Pill Pushers) Now (other topics)
Before the Big Bang: The Prehistory of Our Universe (other topics)
The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Richard Dawkins (other topics)Takaaki Musha (other topics)
To believe the Big Bang Theory in its current state (until and unless it's revised again) you have to buy that this is the only scientific event in history that produced effects from no cause, as the article states.
Unless I'm understanding the Big Bang Theory wrong, the current theory suggests nothing (including time) existed before the event as nothing apparently existed. This fits the finite universe theory, I assume, meaning no space or matter or time or anything existed before the bang.
You can also watch this video 'What Came Before the Big Bang?' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5bZ3...
Are we getting any closer to debunking the Big Bang Theory, Undergrounders?
Is anyone bold enough to make a call before scientific academia (possibly) revises their theory or even replaces it with a whole new theory?
OR, alternatively, who thinks there will be no more revisions and that this theory is perfect and absolutely factual as is?