• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pre-Big Bang

Questerr said:
Except your point in that post was invalid BECAUSE THERE IS NO OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE OF THE PRE-BIG BANG.
Click to expand...

Actually, we don’t know that. The scientists are stating that there is indeed observable evidence, but that we just can’t see it yet. The same thing was done with atoms and with various parts of outer space. They were theorized before they were actually “observed”. Same with pre-Bang. The scientists are proposing theories that represent phenomena that may indeed be eventually observed in some manner. That makes them quite valid as theories and open to the peer review of other scientists.
 
watsup said:
Actually, we don’t know that. The scientists are stating that there is indeed observable evidence, but that we just can’t see it yet. The same thing was done with atoms and with various parts of outer space. They were theorized before they were actually “observed”. Same with pre-Bang. The scientists are proposing theories that represent phenomena that may indeed be eventually observed in some manner. That makes them quite valid as theories and open to the peer review of other scientists.
Click to expand...

What's the difference between scientists claiming with no evidence that there is observable evidence of the Pre-Big Bang, and a theist saying "Goddidit" and believing it on faith with no evidence?

Believe things once evidence is available, not before.
 
tosca1 said:
:lol:

You can't say 100% accurate that something existed before the Big Bang!

Absence of evidence MAY NOT BE evidence of absence!
It is also possible that there is no evidence because nothing existed prior to the Big Bang!




:roll:

Those are simply speculations right now.



WMAP Site FAQs



That's the simplest answer right now. No one knows.




What Happened Before the Big Bang? | Live Science



Read posts #9 and 10.



It is also possible that those theories are all wrong!






It's saying that you're "100% accurate" - that's what I'm reacting to.


You can't say that. :lol:



Unless science confirms that there was something before the Big Bang - you can't say you're 100% accurate that there was
something before the Big Bang.
Click to expand...


Ummm....you and Sherlock are the ones who seem to be saying that it is 100% accurate that there was NOTHING before the Bog Bang. Are you absolutely sure of that?
 
Moot said:
But the origin aka the singularity is still just a theory and science now theorizes that the universe oscillates and expands and contracts and that there was a cooling and reheating period before the big bang and that there was more than one big bang nano seconds apart. In short, there was no singularity or single point in which time began.


Einstein's theory of general relativity can explain almost everything in the known universe up to the point of a singularity but it failed to explain what occurred during and before the big bang. But Einstein's main goal was to find a "theory of everything" that would tie all natural phenomena together...but his theory mostly focused on effects of gravity on large scale matter, such as planets, stars and galaxies...and failed to consider the smallest of particles such as sub-atomic atoms, protons, molecules, etc. which react differently to gravity than matter does. So now there are two competing and incompatible theories...general relativity and quantum mechanics. Finding the link between the two is the goal of science today.

Theory of everything - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

There are actually two bits that might be showing progress on that.

1) Replacing some of the more traditional math with some quantum formulations eliminates the singularity No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning this also shows an eternal universe.

2) Somebody went to figure out what kind of effects in Special relativity if you assumed that supluminal particles existed. They were expecting to have causality issues, but instead they got effects that were more along the lines with observations in quantum mechanics. Does relativity lie at the source of quantum exoticism?
 
Questerr said:
Except your point in that post was invalid BECAUSE THERE IS NO OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE OF THE PRE-BIG BANG.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is.

If "all matter that existed before the big bang was compacted into a very tiny ball with infinite density and intense heat called the Singularity"...then it stands to reason that energy, mass and gravity existed before and during the big bang.

THE PRE-BIG BANG OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE ARE GRAVITATIONAL WAVES AND BLACK HOLES.

How gravitational waves could solve some of the Universe’s deepest mysteries

We'''ve Found Gravitational Waves. What Will We Learn From Them? | Discover Magazine


Perhaps Einstein's theory of general relativity was right after all...the singularity was a BLACK HOLE!?!
 
Moot said:
Actually, there is.

If "all matter that existed before the big bang was compacted into a very tiny ball with infinite density and intense heat called the Singularity"...then it stands to reason that energy, mass and gravity existed before and during the big bang.

THE PRE-BIG BANG OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE ARE GRAVITATIONAL WAVES AND BLACK HOLES.

How gravitational waves could solve some of the Universe’s deepest mysteries

We'''ve Found Gravitational Waves. What Will We Learn From Them? | Discover Magazine


Perhaps Einstein's theory of general relativity was right after all...the singularity was a BLACK HOLE!?!
Click to expand...

No it doesn't because the laws of physics break down the closer one approaches to origin of the Big Bang. Without knowing what physical laws applied to the Singularity, if any did, then no nothing stands to reason regarding it.
 
watsup said:
In another thread, Sherlock states that “I'm quite convinced though that a scientific explanation for the presence of the universe is a logical impossibility, science, mathematical laws, matter, energy can't really take part in an explanation for themselves, this is blindingly obvious - to me.”

Except that what is blindingly obvious to Sherlock is not so to physicists who study and research the matter. As such, here are various readings that give some SCIENTIFIC theories as to the pre-Bang state at that time.

What happened before the Big Bang: What Happened Before the Big Bang? | Live Science

What happened before the Big Bang? | Space

What Came Before the Big Bang? | Discover Magazine

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-came-before-the-big-bang/

What happened before the Big Bang? | Space | EarthSky


Yes, a LOT of scientists disagree with Sherlock.
Click to expand...

Helix said:
i have trouble letting go of the idea that since galaxies seem to be circling the drain around supermassive black holes, a massive contraction of a previous universe preceded the big bang. however, i understand that there's probably an entropy problem there and that my astrophysics background is sorely lacking.

did a quick search, and it looks like this possibly wrong theory has a name.

Big Crunch - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Sorry I got on this one late.

Three critical masses occupy the Cosmic Manifestation and every 27 billion years a critical mass collects at the center of gravity.

Dust builds up on the Kettle and when (shh) opened the Cosmic Manifestation arises.

There are sheets of Etheric, Astral and Causal planets in a fractal pattern into infinity where one emerges from Cosmic Manifestation, Compound and Creation.

We are just one insignificant Universe.
 
watsup said:
In another thread, Sherlock states that “I'm quite convinced though that a scientific explanation for the presence of the universe is a logical impossibility, science, mathematical laws, matter, energy can't really take part in an explanation for themselves, this is blindingly obvious - to me.”

Except that what is blindingly obvious to Sherlock is not so to physicists who study and research the matter. As such, here are various readings that give some SCIENTIFIC theories as to the pre-Bang state at that time.

What happened before the Big Bang: What Happened Before the Big Bang? | Live Science

What happened before the Big Bang? | Space

What Came Before the Big Bang? | Discover Magazine

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-came-before-the-big-bang/

What happened before the Big Bang? | Space | EarthSky


Yes, a LOT of scientists disagree with Sherlock.
Click to expand...

Helix said:
i have trouble letting go of the idea that since galaxies seem to be circling the drain around supermassive black holes, a massive contraction of a previous universe preceded the big bang. however, i understand that there's probably an entropy problem there and that my astrophysics background is sorely lacking.

did a quick search, and it looks like this possibly wrong theory has a name.

Big Crunch - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

The Singularity actually has a very small radius and is a thin shell at the surface.

When filled to critical mass it expands in a universe.

If a singularity passes critical mass, the entire Creation is dumped over the nether shore down the pit.

Then it fills up to the point at which new mass does not create enough surface area on the event horizon to admit new mass.

When enough of these, a big number considering all the causal planets in the Causal Universe, collect, they condense into the radius of the singularity on up into infinity and expand in a Causal Universe.
 
watsup said:
In another thread, Sherlock states that “I'm quite convinced though that a scientific explanation for the presence of the universe is a logical impossibility, science, mathematical laws, matter, energy can't really take part in an explanation for themselves, this is blindingly obvious - to me.”

Except that what is blindingly obvious to Sherlock is not so to physicists who study and research the matter. As such, here are various readings that give some SCIENTIFIC theories as to the pre-Bang state at that time.

What happened before the Big Bang: What Happened Before the Big Bang? | Live Science

What happened before the Big Bang? | Space

What Came Before the Big Bang? | Discover Magazine

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-came-before-the-big-bang/

What happened before the Big Bang? | Space | EarthSky


Yes, a LOT of scientists disagree with Sherlock.
Click to expand...

Helix said:
i have trouble letting go of the idea that since galaxies seem to be circling the drain around supermassive black holes, a massive contraction of a previous universe preceded the big bang. however, i understand that there's probably an entropy problem there and that my astrophysics background is sorely lacking.

did a quick search, and it looks like this possibly wrong theory has a name.

Big Crunch - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Nothing gets much smaller than the Singularity.

One can be lost trying to get tiny there.

In all my undefeated tiny contests, I never got close to the singularity of a Black Hole.

The radius of the singularity is the pathway the Godhead no longer goes from when He began infinitely tiny and became Son to rise to the electron.
 
Questerr said:
What's the difference between scientists claiming with no evidence that there is observable evidence of the Pre-Big Bang, and a theist saying "Goddidit" and believing it on faith with no evidence?

Believe things once evidence is available, not before.
Click to expand...

The difference is, that if you go back and read the theories of those scientists who are proposing the pre-Big Bang situation, they do indeed include scientific evidence that we are aware of and use it to theorize pre-Bang. EVIDENCE IS USED! Let's not forget that it took the science world a very long time to accept Einstein's Theory of Relativity. In fact, it took him a long time for him to come up with enough evidence to show it true to himself. That is what science is about--using present evidence to theorize the future and then checking to see if that evidence continues to work.

That is quite different from just PROPOSING a "God" and not presenting any objective reality-based evidence to support it.
Quite different.
 
watsup said:
The difference is, that if you go back and read the theories of those scientists who are proposing the pre-Big Bang situation, they do indeed include scientific evidence that we are aware of and use it to theorize pre-Bang. EVIDENCE IS USED! Let's not forget that it took the science world a very long time to accept Einstein's Theory of Relativity. In fact, it took him a long time for him to come up with enough evidence to show it true to himself. That is what science is about--using present evidence to theorize the future and then checking to see if that evidence continues to work.

That is quite different from just PROPOSING a "God" and not presenting any objective reality-based evidence to support it.
Quite different.
Click to expand...

They evidence they use is Post Big Bang. They try to use it to speculate about what the Pre-Big Bang might of been. The issue is that we know the energy involved in the Big Bang alters the assumptions behind the laws of physics the closer towards the BB you get.
 
Black Hole Cores May Not Be Infinitely Dense | Inside Science

Researchers suggest the centers of black holes may not hold singularities after all.

These new findings are based on loop quantum gravity, one of the leading theories seeking to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity into a single theory that can explain all the forces of the universe. In loop quantum gravity, the four dimensions of spacetime are composed of networks of intersecting loops - ripples of the gravitational field.

The researchers applied loop quantum gravity theory to the simplest model of black hole - a spherical, uncharged, non-rotating body known as a Schwarzschild black hole.

Instead of a singularity, they found the center of this black hole only held a region of highly curved spacetime.

Theoretical physicists had previously shown that with loop quantum gravity, they could eliminate the singularity that past research suggested existed at the Big Bang. Instead of emerging from a point of infinite density, their work proposed the cosmos was born from a "Big Bounce," expanding outward after a prior universe collapsed.
 
Questerr said:
Once again, you go to pop-science journalism rather than a peer-reviewed paper. I don't care what a journalist falsely claims in order to generate clicks.
Click to expand...

Your science denial schtick is getting old and trite. Maybe you should go back to the flat earth society where you belong.
 
Questerr said:
They evidence they use is Post Big Bang. They try to use it to speculate about what the Pre-Big Bang might of been. The issue is that we know the energy involved in the Big Bang alters the assumptions behind the laws of physics the closer towards the BB you get.
Click to expand...

Do an in-depth study of the pre-Bang theories and then write the scientists and show then how they are wrong. Until then, I will trust their background in research science to come up with valid theories rather than an anonymous chatter in a forum.
 
Questerr said:
They evidence they use is Post Big Bang. They try to use it to speculate about what the Pre-Big Bang might of been. The issue is that we know the energy involved in the Big Bang alters the assumptions behind the laws of physics the closer towards the BB you get.
Click to expand...

The question is, what is the nature of the substance deposited on the singularity?

The next question is what is critical mass?

What is the radius of a singularity?

How many frog eggs make an expansion, how many cause an condensation?

What are the variables and constants associated with how spin and charge affect the above constants?
 
Moot said:
Your science denial schtick is getting old and trite. Maybe you should go back to the flat earth society where you belong.
Click to expand...

You think click-bait journalism is “science” and that’s the problem.
 
Exquisitor said:
The question is, what is the nature of the substance deposited on the singularity?

The next question is what is critical mass?

What is the radius of a singularity?

How many frog eggs make an expansion, how many cause an condensation?

What are the variables and constants associated with how spin and charge affect the above constants?
Click to expand...

The “radius of the singularity” only makes sense in a universe of at least two dimensions. Without laws of physics as we know them, what evidence do we have that the pre-big bang universe had at least two dimensions? It didn’t have space or time based on current scientific models.
 
watsup said:
Do an in-depth study of the pre-Bang theories and then write the scientists and show then how they are wrong. Until then, I will trust their background in research science to come up with valid theories rather than an anonymous chatter in a forum.
Click to expand...

I’d love to see some of this research but so far all anyone has linked to is click-bait pop-science articles written by journalists.
 
Questerr said:
You think click-bait journalism is “science” and that’s the problem.
Click to expand...

Not true at all. Nor is it "bait journalism". It is a summary of some of the pre-Bang theories by competent and well-respected science. Yes, it is a surface explanation, but that does not stop anyone who is more interested from finding their papers or their submissions to science journals in order to learn more about it. That's what other scientists do. They don't accept it on face value--they read it and think about it and then respond to it if they think that have something to contribute. That is how science is done.

Unlike the theists, who are absolutely certain that there is a God, but can't provide any evidence for same.
 
Questerr said:
I’d love to see some of this research but so far all anyone has linked to is click-bait pop-science articles written by journalists.
Click to expand...

So what is stopping you from doing that research. It's probably available if you really want to look at it. Then write them a letter telling them how they are wrong.
 
Questerr said:
You think click-bait journalism is “science” and that’s the problem.
Click to expand...

That's funny, because you sound just like a science denier. But that's your problem, not mine.
 
watsup said:
So what is stopping you from doing that research. It's probably available if you really want to look at it. Then write them a letter telling them how they are wrong.
Click to expand...

I’m not a physicist. And again, I’d love to see some actual peer reviewed research on the topic. No one has presented any as of yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom