Who believes in the Scientific Big Bang myth?
As the article explains below the big bang points to something that did not exist. Its existance cannot be verified because it is saying it is verifying that it did not exist.
Myth - an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing.
From:
[space.com]
The universal origin story known as the Big Bang postulates that, 13.7 billion years ago, our universe emerged from a singularity — a point of infinite density and gravity — and that before this event, space and time did not exist (which means the Big Bang took place at no place and no time).
Frankly, my dear, it makes no nevermind to me
I cannot answer because I simply do not know. This is because I was not there. As for the happening (whatever it was) being the beginning of time I disagree. Time is something invented by man to explain and measure things. For example, how long did it take to get to Arkansas. As for a sound or "bang" back at the time you refer to, I have no proof that there was a sound. Sorry I could not help you.
I had to come back and edit because you say "believe in" for your ideas here. I do not "believe in" anything really. That is so much like a religious term. I do not "believe in" gravity but I am fully aware of its workings, etc.
"Believe in " means put confidence in something.
When you want to drop something into the trash, are you confident that gravity will pull the object into the trash can when you release it?
If you are not confident in gravity then you might would think to prevent the object from immediately going horizontal when you release it from your hand. B
For a fuller treatment of the various explanations offered here, read Chapter 6, titled Thoughts on the ‘Big Bang’, in Beyond the Veil by Jeremy Dunning-Davies. He is a retired Mathematics and Physics professor at the University of Hull in England.
At www.newtoeu.com you will see a fuller description of this book, and you can download a free pdf that doesn’t require a degree in math or physics.
The big bang theory was conceived from information they had at the time ,but is being questioned now that the multiverse theory is also quite prevelant ,It is every changing ,I beleive they have found one of the first stars ? but it is puzzling them because it appears to be older than our universe or maybe it poped in from another universe when the big bang ripped open the fabric of space and time for a moment,These theorys and myths keep changing as we get more knowledge to prove or disprove or just cause endless more questions ,
I do not believe in "big bang myth," because there is no such thing. Also, because I don't "believe" in things in general. Granted, there are morons who call it a myth; that does not make it one.
I accept that, at the current state of our knowledge, the big bang THEORY has the most evidence to support it.
Carl Edward Sagan was an American astronomer, planetary scientist, cosmologist, astrophysicist, astrobiologist, author, poet, and science communicator. Wikipedia
In video, Carl clearly states: "The big bang, our modern scientific creation myth", at 2 minutes and 49 seconds.
@Word Are you now claiming that everything Sagan said or thought is correct? Or do you think I think that?
Sagan was human and capable of being mistaken.
@1BrentMichael there is very little difference in theory and myth. Both theory and myth would be considered to be NOT 100% verified. Neither are absolute nor axioms. Both have uncertainty or unknowns, and are subject to being falsified.
Myth - a traditional story, ... explaining some natural phenomenon
Theory - system of ideas intended to explain something,
@Word I'm afraid you have a very poor dictionary. I realize that in common moronic use, a theory is nothing more than a guess, but in the scientific world, it's far more.
@1BrentMichael yes, you should read the scientific story posted with the link to space.com
@Word So one guy publishes a paper and I'm supposed to take his word? Do you remember cold fusion? It's going to take more evidence.
You don't understand the big bang theory. It's a scientific theory. It has been tested, in that it yields predictions that have proven accurate. It has been reviewed by scientists (real educated scientist, not internet conspiracy theorist) who have failed to disprove it.
Now here's the part you don't understand, it simply states that our universe emerged from a singularity. It says nothing about existence before the nanosecond when expansion began. It doesn't say the universe came from nothing (that is how creationists try to misrepresent it.) It doesn't make a single claim about anything that existed or occurred before the big bang.
Incidentally, the same people who say nothing can exist without a creator, think their creator did.
Create can mean more than 1 thing.
Create from nothing something new that exists.
Create by combining somethings to bring about something new that exists.
It would seem to my understanding that stars create helium by combining 2 hydrogen atoms.
I could create a lake by damming up a river. All the elements and materials exist but changing the form so the lake forms where it once was a flowing stream.
A singularity being a thing of "infinite " sounds like all-power and if it "created" space, then it was omnipresent in its spacelessness.
I personally would hold that space exist for infinity in every direction. Space has always existed and will always exist wheither there is energy matter in space.
please
/plēz/
Learn to pronounce
verb
take only one's own wishes into consideration in deciding how to act or proceed.