• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion


    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: swilow | Vagabond696

The Scientific Explanation Thread

Ok you're going to make me type a lot here...

This is an excerpt from a supplement that came with an issue of New Scientist (Issue 2468). The article is entitled When Time Began...
...the theory of relativity permits space and time to possess a variety of boundaries or edges, technically known as singularities. One type of singularity exists in the centre of a black hole. Another corresponds to a past boundary of space and time at the big bang. The idea is that, as you move backwards in time, the universe becomes more and more compressed and the warping of space-time escalates without limit, until it becomes infinite at a singularity. Very roughly, it resembles the apex of a cone, where the fabric of the cone tapers to an infinitely sharp point and ceases. It is here that space and time begin.

Once this idea is accepted, it is immediately obvious that the question "What happened before the big bang?" is meaningless. There was no such epoch as "before the big bang", because time began with the big bang. Unfortunately, the question is often answered with the bald statement "There was nothing before the big bang", and this has caused yet more misunderstandings. Many people interpret "nothing" in this concept to mean empty space, but let's be clear: space did not exist either prior to the big bang.

Perhaps "nothing" here means something more subtle, like pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges? But again, this is not what is intended by the word. As Stephen Hawking has remarked, the question "What lies North of the North Pole?" can also be answered by "nothing", not because there is some mysterious Land of Nothing there, but because the region referred to simply does not exist. It is not merely physically, but also logically, non-existent. So too with the epoch before the big bang.

People tend to get very upset when told about this. They think they have been tricked, verbally or logically. They suspect that scientists can't explain the ultimate origin of the universe and are resorting to obscure and dubious concepts like the origin of time merely to befuddle their detractors. The mindset behind such outraged objection is understandable: our brains are hard-wired for us to think in terms of cause and effect. Because normal physical causation takes place within time, with effect following cause, there is a natural tendency to envisage a chain of causation stretching back in time either without any beginning, or else terminating in a metaphysical First Cause, or Uncaused Cause or Prime Mover.

This quote from the same article may also help you:

A helpful, albeit two-dimensional, analogy for the expanding universe is a balloon with paper spots stuck to the surface. As the balloon is inflated, so the spots, which play the role of galaxies, move apart from each other. Note that it is the surface of the balloon, not the volume within that represents the three dimensional universe.

Now, imagine playing the cosmic movie backwards, so that the balloon shrinks rather than expands. If the balloon were perfectly spherical (and the rubber sheet infinitely thin) at a certain time in the past the entire balloon would shrivel to a speck. This is the beginning.

Translated into statements about the real universe, this describes an origin in which space itself comes into existence at the big bang and expands from nothing to form a larger and larger volume. The matter and energy content of the universe likewise originates at or near the beginning, and populates the universe at all times. Again, it must be stressed that the speck from which space emerges is not located in anything. It is not an object surrounded by emptiness. It is the origin of space itself, infinitely compressed. Note that the speck itself does not sit there for an infinite duration. It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately from nothing and immediately expands. This is why the question of why it does not collapse back to a black hole is irrelevant. Indeed, according to the theory of relativity, there is no possibility of the speck existing through time because time itself began at this point.

I just typed like 700 words so that had better have been helpful. It's hard to find an explanation that is much clearer than that. If all that sounds like a load of hogwash here is a very brief summation of the evidence for all this found today:

Direct evidence for a cosmic origin in a big bang comes from three observations. The first, and most direct, is that the universe is still expanding today. The second is the existence of a pervasive heat radiation that is neatly explained as the fading afterglow of the primeval fire that accompanied the big bang. The third strand of evidence is the relative abundances of chemical elements, which can be correctly accounted for in terms of nuclear processes in the hot dense phase that followed the big bang.
 
Last edited:
^^ Thanks for the info dude,

Im not saying that the big bang didnt happen, even though you got to admit that evidence is quite limited compared to any other evidence-rich area of science. Let's not forget this is supposedly the spark that started everything.

If space didnt exist previous to the big bang, "WHAT" set the ball rolling?
 
^^ In primary school i was always taught the hand of god

But AS ive got older I'd like to refute that theory
 
why? would be really interesting to hear your reasoning :)

"The hand of god" is a loose term but i find it hard to believe that this amazing universe is nothing but dumb, unintelligent chance. There are definatly forces at work that we can't identify or see.
 
^^ I was taught the same thing (Catholic school)... then again, the same school told us girls not to have abortions because when the doctor was aborting the foetus, if you put a stethescope on the girls stomach,you could hear the baby screaming. :|
 
Monotheism = facism

How dare any religion claim one single (human-like) entity created everything.

There are so many forces at work.
 
I think things that are too hard to explain scientifically are put into the "hand of god" basket.

There was never "nothing" imo. Energy always existed in some form. It was probably a number of random coincidenses that just happened to occur that set a number of energy particles colliding, hence the big bang.
 
endlesseulogy said:
If space didnt exist previous to the big bang, "WHAT" set the ball rolling?
I know this is an explanation thread, but in the end, such a topic will come down to faith, whether you subscribe to Creation or the Big Bang theory.
 
^^ Yes, but what im saying is that possibly the big bang was set in motion by some sort of intelligence. Maybe the two theories are not that different?

Anyway, i dont think our origins are as important as our destination - plus I dont think we are ready for the truth. Someone will probably make a movie out of it! :)
 
Last edited:
i kinda like rubber band theory, where once the universe expands as far as it can, it retracts, like a rubber band, until it has completely collapsed on itself to a point the size of a pinhead, at which point it becomes to volatile (i think) and explodes, in a big bang :)

i say i kinda like it cause i do have some issues but i can't explain them... my only other theory is that when this reality becomes too dense (probably due to human/intelligent interaction/hording) it will be unable to sustain it's own natural laws, and will explode, creating the next reality :)

sometimes i sound crazy :) but if you hold any belief that light is good, you must conceed, as mass, you are it's opposite :)
 
That's actually a theory. I think it's called the big collapse.

My favourite theory for the end of the universe is that everything just keeps drifting apart until everyone's all cold and alone :)
 
endlesseulogy said:
If space didnt exist previous to the big bang, "WHAT" set the ball rolling?
Good question. And by 'good' I actually mean 'wrong' :)

Not only did 'What' not exist; the 'concept of What' didnt exist either.
Even 'setting a ball in motion' implies an event ... you need time for those.

I know it sounds like a pointless way of putting things, but it is equally useful.
eg.
The statement:
"Where the fuck did all that universe come from all of a sudden!"
is equally invalid as the statement:
"Where the fuck didnt all that universe come from all of a sudden!"

In the absence of rules like cause and effect a big bang occurring is as likely as it not occurring (assuming probability meant something in the absence of mathematics)
 
What happen if the big bang was caused by a whole universe emploded on itself or something. whats saying we are the first universe.
i ccant be fucked writing more so fuck it, too smashed. something along those lines but
 
boner_bob said:
What happen if the big bang was caused by a whole universe emploded on itself or something. whats saying we are the first universe.
i ccant be fucked writing more so fuck it, too smashed. something along those lines but


Another interesting point is to use physical size and magnification to interpret the universe. There are universes everywhere on small and grand scales. Even when you think about it small and large are really just concepts that have no benchmark outside our known universe. Just like when we look at things on a sub-atomic level, the structure of electrons going around a nucleus needs to be viewed through a microscope, but it in itself looks like a universe. What if our Earth, stars and galaxies were microscopic in comparison to other bigger universes and we were no more then tiny entities in a cosmic snow globe? Kinda makes you feel insignificant in the scheme of things. =D
 
m4dd0g said:
Good question. And by 'good' I actually mean 'wrong' :)

Not only did 'What' not exist; the 'concept of What' didnt exist either.
Even 'setting a ball in motion' implies an event ... you need time for those.

I know it sounds like a pointless way of putting things, but it is equally useful.
eg.
The statement:
"Where the fuck did all that universe come from all of a sudden!"
is equally invalid as the statement:
"Where the fuck didnt all that universe come from all of a sudden!"

In the absence of rules like cause and effect a big bang occurring is as likely as it not occurring (assuming probability meant something in the absence of mathematics)
You just made my head explode.



I like this thread already. :)
 
endlesseulogy said:
If there was something, what created the something? It's kind of like when you face two mirrors together. An infinate tunnel of duality to dosnt really give a solid explanation of what created our universe.
infinite tunnel of duality?
facing mirrors doesn't achieve anything spectacular. light moves only so fast, and mirrors only reflect so much. besides, i'll pay you $210 if you can line up two mirrors perfectly parallel.
 
endlesseulogy said:
Another interesting point is to use physical size and magnification to interpret the universe. There are universes everywhere on small and grand scales. Even when you think about it small and large are really just concepts that have no benchmark outside our known universe. Just like when we look at things on a sub-atomic level, the structure of electrons going around a nucleus needs to be viewed through a microscope, but it in itself looks like a universe. What if our Earth, stars and galaxies were microscopic in comparison to other bigger universes and we were no more then tiny entities in a cosmic snow globe? Kinda makes you feel insignificant in the scheme of things. =D

$210 if you can get me the use of a microscope that shows you electrons circulating a nucleus.
 
nickyj said:
I believe that brainwashed alien souls are the reason that I'm depressed :(



Thats cause you're a moron. ;)


Dont get me wrong; if you want to believe in reliegon, cool. But scientology takes it one step further into stupidity. Plain and simple.
 
Top