Thread: Explain this whole "Big Bang" thing to me

I know the ideas behind it, of course, but specifically I was wondering about something I read the other day. It was a typical religion argument, and someone asked what came before the big bang. The answer given was something like "Time didn't exist before the Big Bang, so it's not a question that can be answered". Not verbatim, but that's the gist. So, my question should be obvious by now - how does it work? My mind is having trouble imagining a time where... well, there wasn't any time.

I'll try to explain how I understand it using the Penrose and Hawking theory - apologies if I mix something up, as I don't have the book handy.

Anyways, imagine something called the "past light cone" - the tip/vertex of the cone is you, the observer, looking at distant galaxies which are really the universe in an earlier time. Why? because time travels at a finite speed. Time in this cone is represented in the vertical direction and the space directions are represented horizontally.

So, as you travel down the cone. first you see the galaxies as they appear recently, even lower are galaxies as they were billions of years ago, then you have some background radiation and finally matter density which makes our light cone bend in, circularly, meeting at a point called the "Big Bang Singularity."

Now, our cone is actually pear shaped. As the light bends inward, towards itself, sooner or later (in a finite time though ), the cross section of the light cone goes down to zero; therefore the matter trapped in this past light cone is stored in a region/space whose boundary is 0 - hence, there had to be a beginning to time, according to the theory of general relativity.



Actually this theory does argue for the Church/religion/whatever as it does give a bases to the moment of "creation."


Cheez, I'm sure you can get Hawkins paper describing this whole thing somewhere on the net, it was a pretty big deal way back when, and I think they even got a considerable amount of money for it

Well, what about the theory that mankind in the distant future creates the universe that we are in today(circular creation, man exists because man made himself). Thus, there really is no beginning of time.

Actually this theory does argue for the Church/religion/whatever as it does give a bases to the moment of "creation."

Not really... It says rather... "We don't know."

While it doesn't directly contradict some of the premises of many religions, neither does it support them.

Cheers

Originally Posted by MadCow257

Axon there is a problem. It explains nothing, nada, zilc, nin. And why did they get money for that? It's like asking what's beyond the edge of the universe. There is no answer. Creationists can't say what existed before God, and evolutionists can't say what existed before time. Both of us just have to make some unscientific leap. Its unavoidable. Why don't people realize that?

Or perhaps just admit that we don't know.

Sean, here is a picture of my favorite shirt... I think you'll find it entertaining:

Hey guys I know it's really tempting to turn this into a religious debate, but if you're going to do it, do it in PMs or something. That's not what this thread is for.

Originally Posted by MadCow257

Axon there is a problem. It explains nothing, nada, zilc, nin. And why did they get money for that? It's like asking what's beyond the edge of the universe. There is no answer. Creationists can't say what existed before God, and evolutionists can't say what existed before time. Both of us just have to make some unscientific leap. Its unavoidable. Why don't people realize that?

they proved it mathematically according to the general theory of relativity - if you want the mathematical proof search for it online or at your library.

I just wanted to answer Cheez's question, so don't hold me responsible for what I wrote. The question was: why does Big Bang support that time did not exist before the "bang" - so I've written the explanation given by Hawkin - so do with it as you please.

Not really... It says rather... "We don't know."

While it doesn't directly contradict some of the premises of many religions, neither does it support them.

no, that theory made many creationists very happy, as it did support the idea that the universe has a beginning. At one point there is nothing, and at the beginning of time there is "something".

But it prescribes no particular way in which things were "created". So again, it says... "Here... we think this describes things within these constraints, but fails to provide any clues outside them." So, again, it doesn't support creationism. Nor does it refute it.

If you think about it...... what do you think created the primordial ooze that well..... banged. There are a terribly large amount of signs pointing towards the existence of a god.
Vanilla Ice's theory as seen on the surreal life is totally moronic. He says there is a god BUT we come from another more advanced planet. If I could meet I would ask him 1 thing. Why the hell we would get so dumb all of a sudden. His theory is just full of holes as is the theory of evolution.