Feed on Posts or Comments 26 November 2014

Science Johnson on 18 Nov 2008 03:46 am

Science moment – the Big Bang

What actually happened during the Big Bang? Here is a description that may change the way you think about this event:

The Big Bang Was an Explosion OF Space, Not IN Space

The Big Bang was not an explosion of matter into space, rather it was an explosion of space ITSELF, and since space and time are interconnected, we really have to say it was an explosion of space AND time, or space-time.

So, the Big Bang wasn’t an explosion of stuff like atoms or molecules, it was an explosion of a place and instance, it was the creation of when and where.

For more information on the Big Bang see:

Part 2

13 Responses to “Science moment – the Big Bang”

  1. on 22 Nov 2008 at 4:43 pm 1.Think a bit more - Rebecca said …

    What I see is you are doing exactly what the ‘Christians’ do to prove there is God. I think you are a being a bit arrogant assuming there is no God. While I agree with many of your points, they point only to a religious point of view, not God as a whole.

    Science or anything for that matter can be used to make any point based on the perspective of the person creating the argument.

    To say the Big Bang theory and Creationism are different, to me is absurd. They are not mutually exclusive, and ignorance PROVES that. Same thing holds true for Creationism and Evolution, they are not mutually exclusive.

    If you choose to see it or not, there is something out there “bigger,smarter, and better” organizing the scientific laws that govern this world we experience. It is semantics as to what you call it. I choose God. I do not choose religion.

    What I know is the more I understand about Science, and particularly string theory, the more it confirms my personal experience of God. I choose God. I do not choose religion.

  2. on 22 Nov 2008 at 6:40 pm 2.Hermes said …

    What does that have to do with the blog post?

  3. on 22 Nov 2008 at 11:20 pm 3.Adina said …

    Wow Hermes..

    Not a Gentleman either..

    again, you cannot Argue Rebecca s point who put it so well: exactly what intelligent people who admit, and go read for yourself how many eminent scientists, including the beloved einstein… far from being a christian…believed that there is a major force.. and calling it God or others is just a matter of SEMANTIC as Rebecca says
    (coincidentally the same point I was trying to make in my paradigm shift, but she made it better than me) ..

    and then typical of cowards, what do you do?

    The beauty of it is that you are nothing else but the extreme opposite side of the Christians..
    Someone unable to have a dialogue with someone who does not have the same strict belief.

    I pity you.

    Instead of admitting the Inteligence of her statement, You ridicule Rebecca, and you try to imply she s not capable to understand the topics you talk about in this blog..

    I am afraid she is..
    And I m afraid you are not gentleman enough to stand up to the SUBSTANCE and not to the petty DETAILS which abscond your sheer anti god propaganda.

  4. on 22 Nov 2008 at 11:32 pm 4.Adina said …

    I do not have the pretense to understand and know God. How could I? God is basically something which transcend our limited cognitive ability. Otherwise he wouldn t be God.

    But I do not have the pretense to know it all either.. neither to tell others what to believe in.

    They can believe in whatever, as long as it helps them, and make them better persons.

    This is what extremists, on one end or the other of the abusing scale of propaganda, being religious or anti religious, have done across the centuries.
    Deny and defy personal right to choice and claim that they have it all, in terms of knowledge and understanding about the topic, ridiculing the ones that try to differ.

    You Hermes are a Minus Christian. That does not however makes you better than a Plus Christian.
    It makes you same in substance, opposite in appearance.

    Ignorance is sheer bliss they say?
    In your case, it is poison.
    Keep it to yourself.

  5. on 23 Nov 2008 at 12:13 pm 5.VeridicusX said …

    @Adina #3

    I do not have the pretense to understand and know the Pan-Galactic Space Frog. How could I? the Pan-Galactic Space Frog is basically something which transcend our limited cognitive ability. Otherwise she wouldn’t be the Pan-Galactic Space Frog.

    But I do not have the pretense to know it all either.. neither to tell others what to believe in.

    They can believe in whatever, as long as it helps them, and make them better persons.

    This is what extremists, on one end or the other of the abusing scale of propaganda, being religious or anti religious, have done across the centuries.
    Deny and defy personal right to choice and claim that they have it all, in terms of knowledge and understanding about the topic, ridiculing the ones that try to differ.

    You Adina are Minus Honesty and Integrity. That does not however makes you better than a Plus Christian.
    It makes you same in substance, and in appearance.

    Ignorance is sheer bliss they say?
    In your case, it is poison.
    Keep it to yourself.

  6. on 23 Nov 2008 at 2:11 pm 6.AgainAdina said …

    Veridicus..
    a little latin won t erase that you are a big X.. I live it up to your highly active imagination to figure out what this means.. and.
    if you re so poisoned against my poison.. that doesn t make you less poisoned than I am..

    So. Go spit on the Sun. The Sun does not exist.
    as the Sun cannot reply to you if you call him to get down from the sky and not too burn to much.
    The Sun is just an intergalactic-frog. and Television waves do not exist because we do not see them.. and do not talk to us.. talking ignorance..
    Good night.

  7. on 24 Nov 2008 at 9:50 pm 7.loved one said …

    adina,

    I can’t help but wonder why you wish to add such bitter hatred to a board of people that only ask that people question their blind faith and expand their narrow perspectives of the universe. this goes for ALL of us. yes, atheists can be as narrow minded as theists.
    I strongly disagree that believing in supernatural mythology makes people warmer and more open. I have yet to see it. if it were so, and religious persons were truly more loving and compassionate, then why would they feel so obliged (as you yourself do) to continuously post mean-spirited, hateful remarks toward people who think differently than them? why is it such a threat to you that a *tiny* percentage of humanity chooses to think rationally •AND• be honest, loving, compassionate beings?
    I don’t agree with all of the posts here, and I do wish that a lot of the language wasn’t so pejorative (as it more often than not polarizes believers), but if religion has any factual basis whatsoever (and most of us here would say it indeed does not) then I see no reason why a tiny blog would pose any sort of threat to any gods and their multitudes of contradictory religions. does this blog impose on your beliefs? should we not be allowed to speak our minds? perhaps atheists should be silenced, for it is apparently dangerous to teach people to think rationally and question things that don’t make sense.

    if you don’t wish people to speak out against the violence, hatred, and delusion that religions teach (I’m speaking from my own experience with various religions, even buddhism) then what do you propose? should we be good little sheep and just pretend like we don’t care about our fellow beings?
    I for one visit this blog because I care about the future of the planet and I see religion as a serious threat to its longevity. I take religion as a given. it will never go away, but it will always require a dedicated group of people to keep it from getting out of hand and taking over governments and inciting wars and other hate crimes – as they are so apt to do.

  8. on 25 Nov 2008 at 6:28 am 8.Adina said …

    Hi Loved One.
    My bitterness…
    I wish I was bitter.
    Then I wouldn t care.

    I apologize for coming here. This blog is someone’s “house” and I invaded it with my comments. Give me tough a bit of fairness, mine is not more, neither less aggressive than all the insults brought to Christians here..

    However. Funnily enough. I am an antireligious person, when it comes to mixing religion with world affairs.

    As far as personal choices matter, I do not want to and am not in the position to decide who or what people have to believe in. I do not understand why we have to ridicule them and demean them for believing in their own choices.

    Nobody seems to comment tough on the facts that:
    I do not believe in Bible.
    I am not a religious person.

    I will not bring my bitterness here anymore.
    But please.. be fair.. call bitter as well, the people who also accuse whoever differs, of being brain damaged.

    As for Bush being a Christian. and deciding that Christians are bad based on Bush. That speaks tons of the logic or existence of it when it comes to the conclusions here.

    You could prove, if you care, and challenge that bible condones slavery.. and says a master can beat his slave if the slave can get up after three days.. it s ok. You can prove, that bible is not respecting free will when it says that the chosen people can go to war, kill the man, and take the children and wives as slaves.. you could use RATIONAL evidence to prove the TOOLS wrong.. But Do NOT demean and offend the people who have not reach that stage of understanding yet..
    Help them reach that stage, with understanding and caring. Not with the arrogance of being smarter.
    My bitternes? not in a biblical tone, but in a physics proven law of action and reaction, what you give is what you get back..
    Quod erat demonstrandum.

  9. on 25 Nov 2008 at 6:31 am 9.Adina said …

    And on a really bitter tone now:

    damn it.

    I m hated both by Christians and Non Christians.

    But.

    I am who I am.

    And in the end, i don t give a damn of what you think you know I am.

  10. on 25 Nov 2008 at 10:50 am 10.Gern Blansten said …

    And who can argue with that?

  11. on 25 Nov 2008 at 5:05 pm 11.Alex said …

    Aside from any interesting points mentioned in this blog… The video is quite interesting.

    One thing it does not cover is how it contradicts the Law of Conservation of Energy which states that in an isolated system energy is constant– and thus it cannot be created nor destroyed. According to this law the initial spark could not have existed, and thus the matter/antimatter collisions would not have been able to create energy etc.

    Are there any other ideas yet about the big bang that may be able to fall within the realms of physics?

  12. on 26 Nov 2008 at 2:13 am 12.Hermes said …

    Alex, not knowing the initial state of the universe doesn’t result in an answer to what the initial state of the universe was. As you should be quite aware, there are quite a few different scenarios that cover that — including that there was no space time … then there was … making talk about initial states woefully misdirected.

    Note that I am not saying I know the answer, but not knowing doesn’t grant your contention that there was an ‘initial spark’ or if there was what the nature of that spark was.

    The proper response is to have inquisitive humility based on currently known facts and as little conjecture as possible.

    That said, I am hopeful about CERN’s LHC.

    Over the next few months and years we will learn more facts about the true nature of reality no matter how mind bending that turns out to be.

    In either case, I don’t see the same efforts being performed by theologians even though they could easily be awash in cash if they were serious about doing something on the same scale or as serious on a spiritual level. At this rate, either the physicists, cosmologists, or the neuroscientists are the ones I’d put my money on … not the theologians — well, not unless you count Tibetan monks.

  13. on 26 Nov 2008 at 3:17 pm 13.Alex1 said …

    The “spark” I was referring to is mention in the movie at 5 minutes and 15 seconds. Though the word “spark” is not used- so I apologize for the understatement of what was implied. The “Seething mass of energy smaller than an atom” caused an avalanche effect.

    And to reply- theologians have an answer therefor they are not in search for it. According to Christian/Jewish theologians, God spoke and it was- so is there really a need to look for more?

    The people that are unsatisfied (which is a great thing) are the scientists who research it. I encourage the research of it and would never say that it is worthless etc. Understanding our past will ultimately lead to understanding the future of our universe.

    What I am saying is before time existed nothing existed– or at least according to the video. If nothing existed where did something come from because this again contradicts our modern concepts of physics. Something cannot come from nothing- according to physics.

    As for people who are looking into it, the Discovery Institute is the first thing that comes to mind, but they are not alone. There are scientists who believe in the idea of intelligent design, and even non-god intelligent design. Does it make more sense to say “we may never know what caused the reaction to occur” and leave it at that- or does it make sense to say “a being far more intelligent than humans caused time to come into existence”? At least one of them provides some answers.

    Perhaps the “true nature of reality” is right in front of us, and we just don’t see it yet.

    I appreciate the respectfulness of your response and look forward to more.

    Alex

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply