Evidence for the Big Bang Established

[satyr]

It's not every day that a new window on the birth of the universe is thrown open. It's not every day that human beings get the chance to leap into the void and have their conceptions of space and time stretched to the limits. It's not every day that we see the wildest dreams of scientists realized, written into the fabric of space and time and light.

Today appears to be one of those days.

The Big Bang has been the dominant theory explaining the history of the universe for more than a half-century. But puzzles inherent in the idea (and in the data) led to a major addition to the theory in the 1980s: . Since then inflation, as it is called, has been a sometimes contentious but stalwart pillar of our cosmic understanding. To get inflation on solid scientific ground however meant finding ways to see farther back in time than ever before.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/03/17/290862157/a-new-window-on-the-big-bang-has-been-opened

 

[Morning Star]

This still won't shut the naysayers up. As long as appeasement is still the tool of 21st century applications, we'll still see deniers.

Great info, by the way.

 

[andreboba]

What was there before the Big Bang??

The problem I have with physicists who love to talk about the origin of the universe is they expect all of us to take a MASSIVE leap of counter-intuitive faith that from absolutely NOTHING, before there was even a void of space, EVERYTHING just came into being.

Almost magically.

Like a cat suddenly appearing in an empty box.

You can always explain WHAT happened.

When you can tell me the WHY, you've really got my interest.

At best this new 'evidence' of the Big Bang is a partial answer.

Even Darwin wrote when speculating about the origin of life and the role of God(for most of Darwin's life he was a Christian);

I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can.

Darwin never meant to become the patron saint of atheists. His goal had been purely scientific research through observation, which had nothing at all to do with his personal faith.

Darwin had issues with those who felt they had all the answers because of science, and those who believed they knew the truth about all because of their religious faith.

So, proof of the Big Band is great.

But it's not the beginning and scientists should be mindful of peddling it like it is.

 

[Morning Star]

Science is about the How? as opposed to Why? When you ask Why?, you're diving into philosophy, which, in this case, really has no basis when explaining the universe and HOW things are formed. Furthermore, no scientist ever said that they know everything through science. We're still incredibly far off from it. But to take a shortcut, nay...a poor man's response by filling the void with religious ideas for the sake of simplicity, is just a lazy way out.

As any scientist who still wish to know more about the unknown areas of the universe and its mysteries, it's always better to suggest that there's a practical explanation which has yet been uncovered. But in due time, it will be explained once we have the data and necessary information to fully understand it. We won't know it all in our lifetime, but we can damn well sure know that eventually the answers will come. Just...not from human superstition with little observational evidence.

What was there before the Big Bang??

The problem I have with physicists who love to talk about the origin of the universe is they expect all of us to take a MASSIVE leap of counter-intuitive faith that from absolutely NOTHING, before there was even a void of space, EVERYTHING just came into being.

Almost magically.

Like a cat suddenly appearing in an empty box.

You can always explain WHAT happened.

When you can tell me the WHY, you've really got my interest.

At best this new 'evidence' of the Big Bang is a partial answer.

Even Darwin wrote when speculating about the origin of life and the role of God(for most of Darwin's life he was a Christian);

I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can.

Darwin never meant to become the patron saint of atheists. His goal had been purely scientific research through observation, which had nothing at all to do with his personal faith.

Darwin had issues with those who felt they had all the answers because of science, and those who believed they knew the truth about all because of their religious faith.

So, proof of the Big Band is great.

But it's not the beginning and scientists should be mindful of peddling it like it is.

 

[andreboba]

That's fine MS, but we both know many if not most scientists assume there's no discernible truth other than what can be empirically or theoretically proven.

I rarely hear scientists say what they DON'T know.

A grade school kid knows there's a a step before the Big Bang, yet physicists and astronomers put all his emphasis on the 'start' of the universe and not 'how' it began.

The Big Bang isn't how the universe began, to be completely accurate.

For instance, I've never heard any scientist attempt to explain how this infinitely small, unbelievably massive piece of matter roughly the size of a marble that exploded into the known universe came into being in the first place.

In fact I've had professors treat that question like it was irrelevant in any meaningful discussion on the universe.

If we're talking about a scientific inquiry into origins, that's a question that might be worth investigating BEFORE the Big Bang.

But scientists IMO avoid answering this question because the explanation is beyond theoretical. It soon becomes a metaphysical question. Philosophical. Supernatural. Until science finds an acceptable solution to their scientific method ,i.e., something that can be mathematically proven.


So much emphasis on the Big Bang by astrophysics is IMO the equivalent of focusing on what physically happens to a bullet when it goes from complete entropy to suddenly traveling 1000 feet/second and forgetting to add the part that it was fired from a gun. Or that someone pulled the trigger.


One thing I appreciate about Darwin when you read many of his writings is how humble the man was in addressing the missing pieces in his own theories, or how much he believed there were facts he would never know.

Yes he had no clue about the advances in genetic research of the discovery of DNA which proved his theories on evolution, but not even Darwin attempted to speculate on how LIFE began. He only discussed how it evolved.

Too often I hear scientists say in so many words 'shit just happened because that how nature works' when there isn't a convenient explanation for some random phenomenon.

That's both arrogant and lazy.

 

[Bliss]

What was there before the Big Bang??

The problem I have with physicists who love to talk about the origin of the universe is they expect all of us to take a MASSIVE leap of counter-intuitive faith that from absolutely NOTHING, before there was even a void of space, EVERYTHING just came into being.

Almost magically.

Like a cat suddenly appearing in an empty box.

You can always explain WHAT happened.

When you can tell me the WHY, you've really got my interest.

At best this new 'evidence' of the Big Bang is a partial answer.

Even Darwin wrote when speculating about the origin of life and the role of God(for most of Darwin's life he was a Christian);

I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can.

Darwin never meant to become the patron saint of atheists. His goal had been purely scientific research through observation, which had nothing at all to do with his personal faith.

Darwin had issues with those who felt they had all the answers because of science, and those who believed they knew the truth about all because of their religious faith.

So, proof of the Big Band is great.

But it's not the beginning and scientists should be mindful of peddling it like it is.

That's fine MS, but we both know many if not most scientists assume there's no discernible truth other than what can be empirically or theoretically proven.

I rarely hear scientists say what they DON'T know.

A grade school kid knows there's a a step before the Big Bang, yet physicists and astronomers put all his emphasis on the 'start' of the universe and not 'how' it began.

The Big Bang isn't how the universe began, to be completely accurate.

For instance, I've never heard any scientist attempt to explain how this infinitely small, unbelievably massive piece of matter roughly the size of a marble exploded into the known universe came into being]/B] in the first place.

In fact I've had professors treat that question like it was irrelevant in any meaningful discussion on the universe.

If we're talking about a scientific inquiry into origins, that's a question that might be worth investigating BEFORE the Big Bang.

But scientists IMO avoid answering this question because the explanation is beyond theoretical. It soon becomes a metaphysical question. Philosophical. Supernatural. Until science finds an acceptable solution to their scientific method ,i.e., something that can be mathematically proven.


So much emphasis on the Big Bang by astrophysics is IMO the equivalent of focusing on what physically happens to a bullet when it goes from complete entropy to suddenly traveling 1000 feet/second and forgetting to add the part that it was fired from a gun. Or that someone pulled the trigger.


One thing I appreciate about Darwin when you read many of his writings is how humble the man was in addressing the missing pieces in his own theories, or how much he believed there were facts he would never know.

Yes he had no clue about the advances in genetic research of the discovery of DNA which proved his theories on evolution, but not even Darwin attempted to speculate on how LIFE began. He only discussed how it evolved.

Too often I hear scientists say in so many words 'shit just happened because that how nature works' when there isn't a convenient explanation for some random phenomenon.

That's both arrogant and lazy.

AB is on a whole other level... brilliant reads.

 

[satyr]

Too often I hear scientists say in so many words 'shit just happened because that how nature works' when there isn't a convenient explanation for some random phenomenon.

That's both arrogant and lazy.

No reputable scientist would say that "shit just happened", only someone with a broken understanding of scientific methods and discourse.

I also wish you would just come out and say what you really want by asking that science make room for your version of magical thinking in its discourse.

If you want to believe that Jesus and Satan were playing pool on 73rd and Vermont before the dawn of the universe, be my guest.

 

[satyr]

This still won't shut the naysayers up.

The opinions of naysayers are irrelevant to any scientific discovery, as the evidence speaks for itself.

What is interesting to me is how these gravitational waves may (theoretically) be indicative of how multiple inflationary universes exist with laws that are similar and dissimilar to our own.

 

[The Dark King]

No reputable scientist would say that "shit just happened", only someone with a broken understanding of scientific methods and discourse.

I also wish you would just come out and say what you really want by asking that science make room for your version of magical thinking in its discourse.

If you want to believe that Jesus and Satan were playing pool on 73rd and Vermont before the dawn of the universe, be my guest.

Who said anything about Jesus or Satan is it so unimaginable that there is a grand architect.

 

[andreboba]

Who said anything about Jesus or Satan is it so unimaginable that there is a grand architect.

It's the arrogance of scientific thinking again, which I still embrace.

But to assume those unanswered questions about our species and the universe have neat and tidy scientific explanations that we haven't discovered yet is still an assumption, a FAITH based belief, although rooted in the scientific method.

When you ask the really, really hard questions that science doesn't have an explanation for, the atheists are the first to jump up and cry you're trying to add magical faeries to the mix.:smt059

I'm not even talking about religion which only provides the roughest of outlines about what I'm talking about.

I believe like Darwin and Einstein who when discussing 'God' were referring to a higher level of consciousness and understanding that is beyond our own.

It's way beyond any religion.

But yeah, when you ask science how did life begin, they talk about PROCESS, not origin.

Many scientists would have you believe the evolution of life itself is just a natural occurrence that happened spontaneously.

Like if you leave an egg, milk, butter some sugar and flower on your kitchen counter top for a month, it will 'spontanously' turn into a cake.

I'm not trying to win a debate, it just would be nice for scientists to firmly admit there's so much we don't know about life and the universe despite all the confidence they speak on the subjects.

 

[samson1701]

What was there before the Big Bang??

The problem I have with physicists who love to talk about the origin of the universe is they expect all of us to take a MASSIVE leap of counter-intuitive faith that from absolutely NOTHING, before there was even a void of space, EVERYTHING just came into being.

Almost magically.

Like a cat suddenly appearing in an empty box.

You can always explain WHAT happened.

When you can tell me the WHY, you've really got my interest.

At best this new 'evidence' of the Big Bang is a partial answer.

Even Darwin wrote when speculating about the origin of life and the role of God(for most of Darwin's life he was a Christian);

I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope and believe what he can.

Darwin never meant to become the patron saint of atheists. His goal had been purely scientific research through observation, which had nothing at all to do with his personal faith.

Darwin had issues with those who felt they had all the answers because of science, and those who believed they knew the truth about all because of their religious faith.

So, proof of the Big Band is great.

But it's not the beginning and scientists should be mindful of peddling it like it is.

Really? 'Cause that's not what I was taught in Astronomy or Physics. I've always been told, by scientist, that scientists don't know what was there before the Big Bang. Any real Astrophysicist will tell you that. Hell, they even said as much on Cosmos and that's broken down so anyone can understand it.

Where are you getting your information about what scientist believe as a consensus? Not trying to be an ass, but your info is wrong.

So many people have misconceptions of what "science" actually is, or says, and it's always based on these types of misinformation.

 

[Morning Star]

Thank you so damned much!

Really? 'Cause that's not what I was taught in Astronomy or Physics. I've always been told, by scientist, that scientists don't know what was there before the Big Bang. Any real Astrophysicist will tell you that. Hell, they even said as much on Cosmos and that's broken down so anyone can understand it.

Where are you getting your information about what scientist believe as a consensus? Not trying to be an ass, but your info is wrong.

So many people have misconceptions of what "science" actually is, or says, and it's always based on these types of misinformation.

 

[Mignonne]

Really? 'Cause that's not what I was taught in Astronomy or Physics. I've always been told, by scientist, that scientists don't know what was there before the Big Bang. Any real Astrophysicist will tell you that. Hell, they even said as much on Cosmos and that's broken down so anyone can understand it.

Where are you getting your information about what scientist believe as a consensus? Not trying to be an ass, but your info is wrong.

So many people have misconceptions of what "science" actually is, or says, and it's always based on these types of misinformation.

Thank you so damned much!

Seriously! Let's turn the tables and ask creationists, what was BEFORE God, before He created the Universe and us, humans (how considerate of him)?

 

[Morning Star]

You ask them a question like that, eventually it'll lead to either infinite regression or they'll just disregard it as "silly."

Seriously! Let's turn the tables and ask creationists, what was BEFORE God, before He created the Universe and us, humans (how considerate of him)?

 

[andreboba]

Really? 'Cause that's not what I was taught in Astronomy or Physics. I've always been told, by scientist, that scientists don't know what was there before the Big Bang. Any real Astrophysicist will tell you that. Hell, they even said as much on Cosmos and that's broken down so anyone can understand it.

Where are you getting your information about what scientist believe as a consensus? Not trying to be an ass, but your info is wrong.

So many people have misconceptions of what "science" actually is, or says, and it's always based on these types of misinformation.

Whenever I've heard scientists on programs or in the classroom, when they talk about origins of the universe they go immediately to the Big Bang. They never start with 'hey we just don't know' definitively how this whole thing started.
The Big Bang is marketed by the scientific community as the beginning of the universe instead of being correctly labeled as the earliest process that started the universe. It's a subtle difference but it still matters.

Neil deGrasse is a very different kind of astrophysicist in that I believe he's an agnostic and not an atheist. He doesn't make these absolute declarative statements that scientific inquiry is the fountain of all knowledge currently understood and yet to be discovered.

His view on life and the universe is a bit more free form than most scientists.

Also many people from the faith based community have asked at some point what was before God? Not everyone agrees with the orthodox answer that's taught to them by most organized religions.


I'm not at war with science, but I do have a problem with the perception that analytical, empirical thought is the sworn blood enemy of spirituality and metaphysics.

There's no need when someone points out the inherent fallibility of limited scientific knowledge to then take a hot steamy dump on the baby Jesus.

The faith based community is not the enemy of science and rational thought.

Wholesale ignorance and fear of science because of one's own spiritual beliefs is the problem.

 

[Morning Star]

Always remind yourself that human beings are sapient, thinking creatures and as a curious species, we pride ourselves in knowing how things work and operate. Also, we're a superstitious species as a whole, and that's due to evolution as part of the survival mechanism. Because of [most] humans looking for a need to believe in something higher than themselves, we often relish on feigning ignorance just to maintain a certain air of "mystery" especially when there are things that the average human lacks knowledge in.

Regarding the Big Bang theory, there have been empirical evidence pointing to this when it was first introduced. As usual, sufficient information was lacking, but like anyone who held onto said theories and ideas, they feel that eventually more information will come their way in generations to come, which is true by far. They never asserted that it's the absolute beginning, but something which sparked it from its foundations. This is where the Higgs-Boson came in, which helps understand the start of the universe. Though the information recently isn't enough, it's a better idea as to where the beginning of the universe is than simply take the lazy route and hold this supernatural idea that a deity had a hand in it.

Also, no one claimed that science and spirituality were at war with one another. There's a clear distinction between holding a personal belief and then injecting supernatural ideas into an empirical based foundation based on rigorous methods to prove a theory as factual. This is where the lines are drawn and it's problematic because it muddies a field that wants to find answers in a secular manner. Scientists as a whole are generally less religious, but they are also able to separate their faith from their practice and they acknowledge this greatly. I think Francis Collins could attest to that, and Dr. de Grasse would humbly agree.

Whenever I've heard scientists on programs or in the classroom, when they talk about origins of the universe they go immediately to the Big Bang. They never start with 'hey we just don't know' definitively how this whole thing started.
The Big Bang is marketed by the scientific community as the beginning of the universe instead of being correctly labeled as the earliest process that started the universe. It's a subtle difference but it still matters.

Neil deGrasse is a very different kind of astrophysicist in that I believe he's an agnostic and not an atheist. He doesn't make these absolute declarative statements that scientific inquiry if the fountain of all knowledge currently understood and yet to be discovered.

His view on life and the universe is a bit more free form than most scientists.

Also many people from the faith based community have asked at some point what was before God? Not everyone agrees with the orthodox answer that's taught to them by most organized religions.


I'm not at war with science, but I do have a problem with the perception that analytical, empirical thought is the sworn blood enemy of spirituality and metaphysics.

There's no need when someone points out the inherent fallibility of limited scientific knowledge to then take a hot steamy dump on the baby Jesus.

The faith based community is not the enemy of science and rational thought.

Wholesale ignorance and fear of science because of one's own spiritual beliefs is the problem.

 

[Mignonne]

Whenever I've heard scientists on programs or in the classroom, when they talk about origins of the universe they go immediately to the Big Bang. They never start with 'hey we just don't know' definitively how this whole thing started.
The Big Bang is marketed by the scientific community as the beginning of the universe instead of being correctly labeled as the earliest process that started the universe. It's a subtle difference but it still matters.

Neil deGrasse is a very different kind of astrophysicist in that I believe he's an agnostic and not an atheist. He doesn't make these absolute declarative statements that scientific inquiry if the fountain of all knowledge currently understood and yet to be discovered.

His view on life and the universe is a bit more free form than most scientists.

Also many people from the faith based community have asked at some point what was before God? Not everyone agrees with the orthodox answer that's taught to them by most organized religions.


I'm not at war with science, but I do have a problem with the perception that analytical, empirical thought is the sworn blood enemy of spirituality and metaphysics.

There's no need when someone points out the inherent fallibility of limited scientific knowledge to then take a hot steamy dump on the baby Jesus.

The faith based community is not the enemy of science and rational thought.

Wholesale ignorance and fear of science because of one's own spiritual beliefs is the problem.

I agree with you on the wholesale ignorance and fear part. Very true.

Tell me more how the faith-based community is the friend of science and rational thought, please.

 

[The Dark King]

Whenever I've heard scientists on programs or in the classroom, when they talk about origins of the universe they go immediately to the Big Bang. They never start with 'hey we just don't know' definitively how this whole thing started.
The Big Bang is marketed by the scientific community as the beginning of the universe instead of being correctly labeled as the earliest process that started the universe. It's a subtle difference but it still matters.

Neil deGrasse is a very different kind of astrophysicist in that I believe he's an agnostic and not an atheist. He doesn't make these absolute declarative statements that scientific inquiry if the fountain of all knowledge currently understood and yet to be discovered.

His view on life and the universe is a bit more free form than most scientists.

Also many people from the faith based community have asked at some point what was before God? Not everyone agrees with the orthodox answer that's taught to them by most organized religions.


I'm not at war with science, but I do have a problem with the perception that analytical, empirical thought is the sworn blood enemy of spirituality and metaphysics.

There's no need when someone points out the inherent fallibility of limited scientific knowledge to then take a hot steamy dump on the baby Jesus.

The faith based community is not the enemy of science and rational thought.

Wholesale ignorance and fear of science because of one's own spiritual beliefs is the problem.

great post
I never understood science vs religion debate. Science has it's purpose in teaching us how it all happened but some many want to dismiss that tgere could be a why. I notice for a lot of atheists the complete opposition stems from some bad experiences during childhood. Fine you think religion is bs but do you really need to push the agenda so hard. I love disciplines like astrobiology and computational biology but never dismiss the concept of a grand architect. I think to many people are caught up in the Abrahamic religions which if taken literally sound ridiculous but if they're appreciated for their allegorical nature have a lot of value.

 

[The Dark King]

Always remind yourself that human beings are sapient, thinking creatures and as a curious species, we pride ourselves in knowing how things work and operate. Also, we're a superstitious species as a whole, and that's due to evolution as part of the survival mechanism. Because of [most] humans looking for a need to believe in something higher than themselves, we often relish on feigning ignorance just to maintain a certain air of "mystery" especially when there are things that the average human lacks knowledge in.

Regarding the Big Bang theory, there have been empirical evidence pointing to this when it was first introduced. As usual, sufficient information was lacking, but like anyone who held onto said theories and ideas, they feel that eventually more information will come their way in generations to come, which is true by far. They never asserted that it's the absolute beginning, but something which sparked it from its foundations. This is where the Higgs-Boson came in, which helps understand the start of the universe. Though the information recently isn't enough, it's a better idea as to where the beginning of the universe is than simply take the lazy route and hold this supernatural idea that a deity had a hand in it.

Also, no one claimed that science and spirituality were at war with one another. There's a clear distinction between holding a personal belief and then injecting supernatural ideas into an empirical based foundation based on rigorous methods to prove a theory as factual. This is where the lines are drawn and it's problematic because it muddies a field that wants to find answers in a secular manner. Scientists as a whole are generally less religious, but they are also able to separate their faith from their practice and they acknowledge this greatly. I think Francis Collins could attest to that, and Dr. de Grasse would humbly agree.

Have you seen the podcast I posted for MS?

 

[Morning Star]

I didn't really bother watching it actually. I had an idea it has something to do with holistic rituals and some stuff. I'll give it a look one day, but it's not top priority at the moment.

And for the record, Amber Lyon's work is really good.

Have you seen the podcast I posted for MS?