InfiniteNow Posted July 26, 2006 Report Share Posted July 26, 2006 Anyone who claims that the Big Bang is the complete unadulterated answer to the questions of the origins of our universe is wrong. However, the fact that the BB model is incomplete does not necessitate a God, and that is a subjective and very personal interpretation. For me... quite a leap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aireal Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 InfiniteNow As stated in my post, I was just playing around with the big bang, but there was a reason for it. Many religious people belive that theories like the big bang leave no room for God, and the same can be said for many scientificly minded people. My intent was to show that one does not have to exclude the other. If more people realizied this, there would be a lot less fighting over such things. Personally I agree with Hawking and Barrow, the big bang theory is "creation out of absolutely nothing". I distrust string theory for it depends on a yet undetermined number of diminsions that can only be explored mathamaticly. Though it may be closer to the truth than the Big Bang is, a lot of details still need to be worked out. Brane theory has no serious flaws that I can see at this time, but something bugs me about it that I can not put my finger on yet. There is one other theory I have heard of, WSM. The Wave Structure of Matter can be looked at as a simplified version of string theory that does not need any extra diminisions to work. It is based on the same concept spoken about by Hawking "The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary." "The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE." Info. on WSM can be found here: http://www.spaceandmotion.com/ if you wish to examine it in detail. I have only recently heard of WSM. I found it while I was working on my radiation shielding project. So I can not give great details on it yet, lots of reading, little time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfiniteNow Posted July 27, 2006 Report Share Posted July 27, 2006 I have only recently heard of WSM. I found it while I was working on my radiation shielding project. So I can not give great details on it yet, lots of reading, little time.No worries, and thanks for the clarification. I read last night that the wave properties of light have since been observed at the molecular level, iodine (I2) I believe... such that the wave particle complimentarity is no longer relegated to the subatomic realm, and wavelike effects are seen on a larger scale... Neat stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIENVN Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 If the universe is expanding/stretching, what is it expanding/stretching into? Is it nothingness? Or rather is it is 'nothingness' only in the sense that we cannot give it a word or a definition? Where did all the mass-energy in the universe came from? Is it from nothing? Since we define the universe as being everything( EX: energy-mass,all the temporal and spatial concepts), then it makes little sense imagine something 'outside' the universe, or 'before' the big bang. Yet, the question still remain, and nothing got resolved. The universe can not understand if scientists can not discover gravitational waves on the earth. Scientist on the world should re-consider gravitational waves in the way of Einstein's unified field theory in 1920, instead of in the way of Einstein's general relativity theory in 1916. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.