141–150 of 647 posts
> The Big Bang is often described as the explosive birth of the universe – a singular moment when space, time and matter sprang into existence. It is indeed "often described" in the media as such. However, that is _not_ the currently accepted theory. "What if there were no space and time before the Big Bang" is just Stephen Hawking's pet theory.
Might as well believe in God if you’re going to believe in spontaneous accidental creation…
If this is true it almost literally means black holes are a way for universes to make children. If we apply Darwin’s principles of the strongest survive this must mean that universes that produce the most black holes are the “best”. If correct, what does this actually mean?
Darwinian logic requires a feedback loop. And because those universes are isolated then there’s no “incentive” of a universe to have more “offspring”?
Anyone else think this is what happened?
The big bang sounds like how a computer would interpret being turned on. Anyone else think this is what happened?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so? If you attribute it to an earlier universe, you are just pushing the problem further back. It doesn't seem to be a proof or even a mild indication.
The universe casually didn't follow the laws of physics immediately after the Big Bang, an improbable event directly after an improbable event. No explanation has been found, even according to CERN, why everything that was created was not spontaneously annihilated. Attributing that to a divine intervention is the most probable explanation. CERN attributing this to "Some unknown entity" is humorous. One theory (which…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Might as well believe in God if you’re going to believe in spontaneous accidental creation…
Which God? Vishnu? Ra? Amatarasu?
The big bang sounds like how a computer would interpret being turned on. Anyone else think this is what happened?
I'm not a scientist or astrophysicist but i do believe in science, is it ok to believe that we as humans and all our scientific development still very very far from proving anything remotely close to how the universe got created? I feel this subject is for humanity in year 2600 to start discussing it. Scientist still can show their theories and search papers and i can't understand a shit but i don't believe in any th…
> The Big Bang is often described as the explosive birth of the universe – a singular moment when space, time and matter sprang into existence. It is indeed "often described" in the media as such. However, that is _not_ the currently accepted theory. "What if there were no space and time before the Big Bang" is just Stephen Hawking's pet theory.
A more accurate summation would be that our theories do not permit us to go back beyond what appears to be the "Big Bang", and indeed, we can't quite get to it either, since the need for Quantum Gravity becomes too great as we get to what seems to be the "zero time". We have no principled, reasonable way to make any claims about what came before the point where our theories break down, and that includes the claim tha…