What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[esme]

Nonetheless, "technically", it could be deemed an untested theory.

 

as you are dismissing a comparison of results from a calculation from theory with a direct observation, I have to ask you what exactly would you accept as a test ?

[artisan]

I didn't say they did exist

 

and you and I can't envisage it but I believe you are wrong when you state "the human mind cannot envisage it"

 

Nothing existed, not a vacuum, not an empty space, there was not even anything to compare nothing to. Nothing was the order of the day.

You cannot even say nothing, as nothing, indicates the opposite of something,

Can you even begin to get your head round it.

[danot]

Knowing what it is requires observation and study. The question of whether or not all things are contained, however, is solvable by elementary logic. Science does not even come into it.

Or, is it simply the human experience that you referred to earlier, being applied to an incomprehensible concept?

[plekhanov]

Nothing existed, not a vacuum, not an empty space, there was not even anything to compare nothing to. Nothing was the order of the day.

You cannot even say nothing, as nothing, indicates the opposite of something,

Can you even begin to get your head round it.

Just because you can't "get your head round it" that doesn't mean nobody can. Can you really not accept the possibility that some people whether through aptitude, training or both can understand concepts you are utterly unable to?

[esme]

Nothing existed, not a vacuum, not an empty space, there was not even anything to compare nothing to. Nothing was the order of the day.

You cannot even say nothing, as nothing, indicates the opposite of something,

Can you even begin to get your head round it.

 

no and neither can you but does that mean that no one can ?

 

no one at all ?

 

something like 6.5 billion people on the planet and not one of them can hold this concept in their heads ?

 

and every last one of these 6.5 billion people has been asked this question so you can state this as an indisputable fact ?

[danot]

You taking the internet for granted and not pausing to consider it's existence whilst using it as a medium to attack science is rather the point.

 

I had thought I'd made my point clear enough for even you to understand but apparently I hadn't so I'll try again.

• The internet is a product of science
  
• As such your attacks upon science are rather undermined by them being made over the internet which owes it's very existence to "arrogant", "conceited scientists"
  

If science is a worthless as you suggest then you clearly wouldn't be able to attack it over the internet now would you?

 

 

It's astonishingly arrogant that you seem to consider your personal inability to comprehend certain scientific theories not as evidence that you aren't very bright but as evidence that the theories themselves are "flawed".

Deliberate stawman!.. I haven't attacked science.. I attacked the attitude of scientists.

 

Can you see where you went wrong?

[Obelix]

Precisely!, scientists even admit that they haven't the foggiest what dark matter is, yet somehow, they're in no doubt that it can't be contained.

 

Rubbish. We even give it a name telling you what it is - it's cold, it's dark, and it's matter not energy....

[Obelix]

((((Nothing cannot create something))))

 

Wrong.

 

As long as you do it faster than the Planck time - you can..:-)

 

Google Hawking radiation for one of the more crazy results of quantum mechanics.

[foxy lady]

I was going to post on this but I can do without the agression on here.

[Obelix]

The big bang Theory has never been observed or experimented on, so does it qualify as a theory?

 

It has been observed though, and continues to be observed. It was even observed up at the Hicks building at the University by me.

 

It is both a theory, and a fact. Much like the theory of gravity is also a fact.