There was no Big Bang.

[leftForDeadPhoenix]

But The big bang certainly doesn't hold up to conservation of energy.
Saying there was a beginning of time begs the question, "what happened before then?" which is an obvious logical absurdity. My conclusion? The universe must be infinite in all dimensions.

If the universe is infinite, it would have "burned out" by now. The sun would be gone and earth would have no gravity to make it spin. The question of "where did the big bang come from?" is unanswerable by scientists. Also, order does not come from disorder. You can't make a car by throwing its parts up in the air and hope they land perfectly together. That's why the chances of a creator are much greater.

 

[leftForDeadPhoenix]

No....

what I mean is how can you ever say that "time = 0"?

That has a presupposition that there is a start of time. If there is a start of time then we're talking about the big bang. Who the fuc'k said that there's a time=0 or even a time=50 or whatever?

There has to be a beginning of time, because the universe is finite. You and me are going to die someday. Everything, as far as mass, goes from a state of order to disorder.

 

[Gubby]

There has to be a beginning of time, because the universe is finite. You and me are going to die someday. Everything, as far as mass, goes from a state of order to disorder.

Stating that the universe is finite is not the same as proving the universe is finite.

 

[Phyzzle]

The video was weird, but actually, there are some serious scientists on the fence about the Big Bang Theory.

In almost every measurement of microwave backgrounds, redshifts, etc., the theory has to be drastically revised to account for each new observation. I'm not aware of a single quantitative prediction of the Big Bang Theory that's ever been found to be right after the prediction was made.

The theory predicted a certain density of mass in the universe, but when the mass observed was too low, we get, "there's this stuff called dark matter, that's invisible, intangible, never interacts with anything, but it exists in the exact amount needed to make our theory true, what a lucky coincidence!"

I mean WTF, if you're forced to pull absurdly huge entities out of your a$$ every time someone makes a real measurement, maybe it's time to switch to a simpler theory.

 

[Gubby]

The theory predicted a certain density of mass in the universe, but when the mass observed was too low, we get, "there's this stuff called dark matter, that's invisible, intangible, never interacts with anything, but it exists in the exact amount needed to make our theory true, what a lucky coincidence!"

Yeah, dark matter is nothing but pointing out the gap in the theory.

I mean it doesn't disprove it. But Occam's razor and all that.

 

[Deep Dish]

Not that this is an exhaustive all-inclusive reply...

In almost every measurement of microwave backgrounds, redshifts, etc., the theory has to be drastically revised to account for each new observation. I'm not aware of a single quantitative prediction of the Big Bang Theory that's ever been found to be right after the prediction was made.

The theory predicted a certain density of mass in the universe, but when the mass observed was too low, we get, "there's this stuff called dark matter, that's invisible, intangible, never interacts with anything, but it exists in the exact amount needed to make our theory true, what a lucky coincidence!"

Ad hoc hypotheses are a valid part of the scientific method. Science is provisional and evolves as new evidence arrives. Ad hoc hypotheses are abused by claimants of unsubtantiated claims, such as telepathy to comfort themselves from the fallout of their failed experiments, but nonetheless it's valid. Continental drift was an ad hoc hypothesis but nonetheless is verifiably true. The key difference between good and bad ad hoc hypotheses is substantiation.

NASA found direct proof of dark matter. Ooops!

To everyone else, I'm going to write a really long post. Wait a few weeks.

 

[leftForDeadPhoenix]

Stating that the universe is finite is not the same as proving the universe is finite.

True enough, but at least Stephen Hawking agrees with me...

The time scale of the universe is very long compared to that for human life. It was therefore not surprising that until recently, the universe was thought to be essentially static, and unchanging in time. On the other hand, it must have been obvious, that society is evolving in culture and technology. This indicates that the present phase of human history can not have been going for more than a few thousand years. Otherwise, we would be more advanced than we are. It was therefore natural to believe that the human race, and maybe the whole universe, had a beginning in the fairly recent past. However, many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning, because it seemed to imply the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe. They preferred to believe that the universe, and the human race, had existed forever. Their explanation for human progress was that there had been periodic floods, or other natural disasters, which repeatedly set back the human race to a primitive state.

This argument about whether or not the universe had a beginning, persisted into the 19th and 20th centuries. It was conducted mainly on the basis of theology and philosophy, with little consideration of observational evidence. This may have been reasonable, given the notoriously unreliable character of cosmological observations, until fairly recently. The cosmologist, Sir Arthur Eddington, once said, 'Don't worry if your theory doesn't agree with the observations, because they are probably wrong.' But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The Second Law, states that disorder always increases with time. Like the argument about human progress, it indicates that there must have been a beginning. Otherwise, the universe would be in a state of complete disorder by now, and everything would be at the same temperature. In an infinite and everlasting universe, every line of sight would end on the surface of a star. This would mean that the night sky would have been as bright as the surface of the Sun. The only way of avoiding this problem would be if, for some reason, the stars did not shine before a certain time.

The Beginning of Time--Stephen Hawking

2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

I don't agree that a big bang caused the universe, and even worse is the question of what was before it? It was just a theory thrown up in order to explain the problem of a finite universe without entertaining an infinite source(creator).

 

[synergy1]

If the universe is infinite, it would have "burned out" by now. The sun would be gone and earth would have no gravity to make it spin. The question of "where did the big bang come from?" is unanswerable by scientists. Also, order does not come from disorder.

Yeah, most theories fall apart at the "start" of the big bang. Furthermore, physicists have been unable to prove the existence of the unification of the strong/weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces exist as one in a high energy state. From what I remember, they have proven the unification of the strong/ weak forces which gives us some hope that a big bang like event could have happened. As far as I know, the grand unified theory has not been proven yet.

How planets and stars came to be is also a mystery for the reason you stated. This question gives us a clue about our universe. Entropy ensures all energy will eventually be in an "unusable" state, yet somehow the stars, planets came to be. This would suggest an oscillating or dynamic universe which would allow density formations to develop into the solar systems we see today. Coupled with the fact that every star is shifting towards the red spectrum, this implies everything is flying away from us. Could it be that this is the universe expanding in all directions?

 

[leftForDeadPhoenix]

If the universe is infinite, it would have "burned out" by now. The sun would be gone and earth would have no gravity to make it spin. The question of "where did the big bang come from?" is unanswerable by scientists. Also, order does not come from disorder.

Yeah, most theories fall apart at the "start" of the big bang. Furthermore, physicists have been unable to prove the existence of the unification of the strong/weak nuclear and electromagnetic forces exist as one in a high energy state. From what I remember, they have proven the unification of the strong/ weak forces which gives us some hope that a big bang like event could have happened. As far as I know, the grand unified theory has not been proven yet.

How planets and stars came to be is also a mystery for the reason you stated. This question gives us a clue about our universe. Entropy ensures all energy will eventually be in an "unusable" state, yet somehow the stars, planets came to be. This would suggest an oscillating or dynamic universe which would allow density formations to develop into the solar systems we see today. Coupled with the fact that every star is shifting towards the red spectrum, this implies everything is flying away from us. Could it be that this is the universe expanding in all directions?

Stephen Hawking has some articles on his website that give his explanations on the same subjects you have brought up. He makes the same point about a "dynamic" universe and tries to explain things such as black holes and the like.
I don't know if you've checked it out yet, but it's something right up your alley.

 

[synergy1]

Stephen Hawking has some articles on his website that give his explanations on the same subjects you have brought up. He makes the same point about a "dynamic" universe and tries to explain things such as black holes and the like.
I don't know if you've checked it out yet, but it's something right up your alley.

I probably have at some point, I am going on material I learned in high school close to 10 years ago - some of it is hazy now since I don't actually use any of it. I was, and still am fascinated by quantum physics, relativity, and the like