What existed before the big bang? Something must have!

[danot]

He's a troll. Either by inclination or nature. Pay him no heed - I intend to no further.

Is that your scientific opinion, or can you prove it?

[danot]

So what is the point of someone explaining something to you that is incomprehensible to you as you've clearly demonstrated?

What is there to explain?.. it's incomprehensible.

[Alien]

If you mean the general term of nothing, I'd describe it as:, being without - not having something.

 

But that is only "being without" it doesn't mean it doesn't exist...whatever it is you're "without". Maybe your comprehension (scientifically) is no more complicated than a child's like view of "nothing"?

 

What is there to explain?.. it's incomprehensible.

 

To you..so why the thread? Are you asking those that do comprehend to explain why it does? and in a childlike simplistic way? Or are you of the thinking that "it's incomprehensible to me therefore the same applies to others?"

[danot]

But that is only "being without" it doesn't mean it doesn't exist...whatever it is you're "without". Maybe your comprehension (scientifically) is no more complicated than a child's like view of "nothing"?

The something that I'm without isn't being discussed. You asked me to describe(in my own words)nothing!, which I did.

 

 

 

Posted by Alien

To you..so why the thread? Are you asking those that do comprehend to explain why it does? and in a childlike simplistic way? Or are you of the thinking that "it's incomprehensible to me therefore the same applies to others?"

Not at all.

 

Firstly Alien, there are no answers which could satisfy my curiosity regarding my question. No-one has the answer.. No-one!. Which is why I didn't ask for answers.. I asked for theories.

[Cyclone]

If you was to disregard everything that you've ever been told - everything that's ever been written - everything that you've watched on tv... what would you know for certain?

 

With a bit of effort and some basic empirical evidence you could derive a lot of basic scientific theory.

You don't have to accept something when you're told it, that's part of the nature of scientific investigation, so long as you understand what it is you're being told you can set out to disprove it experimentally.

They don't just teach theories and mathematical equations at school, they teach how to derive the theory and the mathematical proof for the theories. They teach you to question and think critically about the explanations for things. That's kind of the point of science.

[Cyclone]

No I cant.

I am one of the few people on this planet that refuses to accept being told what to think.

I know what I know, I see what I see, I think what my brain tells me.

Without me, this Universe does not exist, you die when I die, think on that my friend.

 

Are you actually claiming that because you refuse to accept what your told (as if everyone else can't think critically) that this means it's impossible that there is anyone on the planet who can understand something better than you. I think sums up my response to that.

[Tyranna]

Yes, I know the obvious answer is,'nothing existed before the big bang; how could it?.. but to accept that theory defies logical. Something must have existed before the singularity

 

 

...Maybe, it was a very big balloon...

 

No, seriously, this question has baffled me I think ever since I did Physics O Level in school.

 

A lot of theories have been covered already by physicists, such as the Oscillating Universe (Big Bang-Expansion-contraction-Big Crunch, repeat ad infinitum), as well as chains of interconnected universes with new ones being born and old ones dying via singularities/wormholes, etc.

Before the Big Bang, popular theory tells us that 'space' as we know it didnt exist, because time didnt exist, nor did matter, mass, energy, gravity, etc. This is where theories of additional dimensions to the 3 visible ones, plus time, come in; however, for the 'bang' to have 'happened' at a particular 'moment', there must have already been some kind of 'time' or 'timeline', perhaps on a 'nano-scale' revolving in an endless loop? When the 'Bang' happened, the universe started expanding, therefore time broke out of its endless tiny loop and went along its one-way never-ending track as the function of time we know today.

If time had originally been compressed into a very tiny loop, it would be hard to imagine without there being some kind of space for it to exist in, even a very tiny amount of space, i.e. the 'singularity' from where the immense amount of matter in the Universe sprang from.

And while 'Space' (which at its purest form is an empty vacuum with no matter in it), appears to be a function of the present Universe created of energy, matter, gravity, 3 dimensions, etc., it could exist without none of these as a 3-dimensional space with no matter, energy, heat, light, etc., at a constant temparature of -273.15 degrees C (Absolute Zero).

One could therefore imagine a perfect vacuum or space like this before any energy/matter arrived on the scene, but this leaves us with where the energy/matter/etc. sprang from.

 

One of the most recent theories suggests that our universe is just one of many, which are arranged like bubbles in a 'sea' of empty space; this suggests that new universes arise and old ones disappear in and out of points like singularities within this space -once again, like the 'wormhole theory' of black holes being 'gateways' to other dimensions-.

 

Maybe the best explanation is one of several additional dimensions, connected by black holes/wormholes and the like, so matter/energy never entirely disappears or is 'created', but is just whisked from one set of visible dimensions to another, and therefore spontaneously appears to be created or annihilated.

 

Maybe there has always been some kind of matter/energy in 3-dimensional space somewhere, for example the huge amount of 'Dark Matter' around our own Universe, and that the visible Universe was a by-product of collisions between Dark matter/energy.

[danot]

With a bit of effort and some basic empirical evidence you could derive a lot of basic scientific theory.

You don't have to accept something when you're told it, that's part of the nature of scientific investigation, so long as you understand what it is you're being told you can set out to disprove it experimentally.

They don't just teach theories and mathematical equations at school, they teach how to derive the theory and the mathematical proof for the theories. They teach you to question and think critically about the explanations for things. That's kind of the point of science.

Yes, you make some fair points. Although, to conclude that the findings of test A) are true, simply because the findings of test B)(the only alternative)is deemed paradoxically untrue, doesn't sit well with me, because the findings of test A) are proved true by default. There's no truth in the theory.

[Lockjaw]

Apologies if this has been covered already ... I'm catching up on the comedy after a day spent in the real world and have only got to page 20.

 

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

 

Ooh dear ... Now you're entering the realms of dishonesty.

 

You, yourself, referred to the fact that galaxies appear to be moving apart as an observation which supports the theory, subsequently, IIRC, pretending you already knew about red shift. Have you now changed your mind about that one?

[Lockjaw]

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

 

Read again then...

 

Forthright stating of opinion, yes. Frustration-fueled criticism of some posts, yes. Aggression .... I haven't seen any.

 

Come on ... Join in. (Assuming you didn't already do so ... I'm up to page 22 now).