Surprise: the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe anymore

Skybird · 10-15-21, 02:37 PM

Think twice, Markus - under guidance by the linked book.

Things might not be what they look like. In the end, Big Bang is just a theory, made - like every theory - by best possible use of known facts at a given time. Possible that one day we put Big Bang into relation to a bigger context, as comologists today already do, or replace it completely with a then better fitting theory.

Scientific theories are never-ending construction sites. That is no criticism, nor pessimism - but the essence of the scientific process. No absolutes, no penultimate truths.

mapuc · 10-15-21, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

Think twice, Markus - under guidance by the linked book.

Things might not be what they look like. In the end, Big Bang is just a theory, made - like every theory - by best possible use of known facts at a given time. Possible that one day we put Big Bang into relation to a bigger context, as comologists today already do, or replace it completely with a then better fitting theory.

Scientific theories are never-ending construction sites. That is no criticism, nor pessimism - but the essence of the scientific process. No absolutes, no penultimate truths.

The Theory behind Big Bang is that the entire universe started from a little atom and throughout billions of years it expand to what it is today.

I say the theory could very well fit our own galaxy the Milky Way, but not the entire universe.

I have, based on all the documentary I've seen, heard and read, created my own theory.

Secondly
Nothingness can't exist. Universal law forbid this.

There are more universes than ours.

Markus

Arlo · 10-15-21, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc

I have, based on all the documentary I've seen, heard and read, created my own theory.

I didn't know you were an astrophysicist.

mapuc · 10-15-21, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arlo

I didn't know you were an astrophysicist.

I'm not an astrophysicist far from it.

I just like to create own theory about what's going on in our universe.

Markus

Arlo · 10-15-21, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc

I'm not an astrophysicist far from it.

I just like to create own theory about what's going on in our universe.

Many a non-realistic point of view started that way. Flat-Earthers, for instance.

mapuc · 10-15-21, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arlo

Many a non-realistic point of view started that way. Flat-Earthers, for instance.

I do NOT believe in flat-earth theory.

If people want to believe it they are welcome to do so.

Markus

Arlo · 10-15-21, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc

I do NOT believe in flat-earth theory.

If people want to believe it they are welcome to do so.

Nor do I. But, yes, people are indeed welcome to believe their own made up theories. But I'm not gonna let a surgeon that made up their own medical degree operate on me. Nor am I going to argue with a community of astrophysicists using my own theory of the universe based on a documentary I once saw. Just sayin'.

Sean C · 10-15-21, 03:48 PM

Meh. The article linked in the OP begins by stating the big bang isn't the beginning, and concludes by saying that:

Quote:

Inflation could have gone on for an eternity, it could have been preceded by some other nonsingular phase, or it could have been preceded by a phase that did emerge from a singularity.

IOW, the big bang theory is no less plausible than before. More precisely: we're now even less sure whether or not it is the right theory - and we may never know.

Don't get me wrong, it's still fascinating. Just a bit of click-bait at the beginning ... as usual.

What really interests me is the idea of "time" itself in [or "before"] these extremely early states.

Jeff-Groves · 10-15-21, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mapuc

Nothingness can't exist. Universal law forbid this.

And how exactly do you know what Universal Law is?

mapuc · 10-15-21, 03:42 PM

Universal law is many things.

I made a search for nothingness cannot exist and found this

Quote:

Nothingness doesn't be, that's the definition of nothingness (at least in this question) that what is not, does not exist. If there was no Universe, if there was nothing, nothingness would be, that is the only thing that there would be. Therefore, for nothingness not to be, something must be.

Markus

Jeff-Groves · 10-15-21, 03:45 PM

Yeah I can Google too!

Nothingness is an abstract concept, meaning it may or may not possibly exist.

We do NOT know all the Laws of the Universe! If they even exist is questioned!
And Laws can be broken!

10-15-21, 02:37 PM	#1
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,682 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	Think twice, Markus - under guidance by the linked book. Things might not be what they look like. In the end, Big Bang is just a theory, made - like every theory - by best possible use of known facts at a given time. Possible that one day we put Big Bang into relation to a bigger context, as comologists today already do, or replace it completely with a then better fitting theory. Scientific theories are never-ending construction sites. That is no criticism, nor pessimism - but the essence of the scientific process. No absolutes, no penultimate truths. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-15-21, 03:45 PM	#11
Jeff-Groves GLOBAL MODDING TERRORIST Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 5,654 Downloads: 137 Uploads: 0	Yeah I can Google too! Nothingness is an abstract concept, meaning it may or may not possibly exist. We do NOT know all the Laws of the Universe! If they even exist is questioned! And Laws can be broken!