Misconceptions about the Big Bang

[Phaedrus]

There's a common misunderstanding people seem to have about the Big Bang event/theory: they seem to think that the theory implies that the universe came from nothingness.

This is not the case.

The Big Bang theory postulates the expansion of the universe from what's known as a singularity, that is a point of infinitely dense matter and energy, where our current understanding of physics breaks down (the equations spit out "Infinity", or "Undefined", or "Divide by Zero Error"). Singularities are found today inside of black holes; however the primordial singularity may or may not have been a black hole.


The Big Bang theory DOES NOT say anything about that singularity's properties (other than it containing all mass/energy in the universe and possibly rolled up dimensions), and DEFINITELY does not say anything about what came before the singularity. Nowhere in the Big Bang theory do you find the term "nothingness".

The Big Bang could have been a one-off event from nothingness. It could have been one of a billion, a trillion, a googolplex of universes being born all at once. It could have been born from the ashes of dying universe that collapsed in on itself, or it could have been a descendent of a black hole in another universe. The Big Bang could have been set off by a supernatural being called God, or all of our reality could be a simulation in another universe's computer, just some hyper-dimensional grad student's PhD thesis.

The Big Bang theory says nothing about any of this. All it says is that the universe started out near-infinitely small, and expanded and cooled into its present state, and all the evidence we have backs this up.

"Nothing" doesn't figure into it.

[Free Thought]

(17-11-2012 01:03 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  There's a common misunderstanding people seem to have about the Big Bang event/theory: they seem to think that the theory implies that the universe came from nothingness.

This is not the case.

The Big Bang theory postulates the expansion of the universe from what's known as a singularity, that is a point of infinitely dense matter and energy, where our current understanding of physics breaks down (the equations spit out "Infinity", or "Undefined", or "Divide by Zero Error"). Singularities are found today inside of black holes; however the primordial singularity may or may not have been a black hole.


The Big Bang theory DOES NOT say anything about that singularity's properties (other than it containing all mass/energy in the universe and possibly rolled up dimensions), and DEFINITELY does not say anything about what came before the singularity. Nowhere in the Big Bang theory do you find the term "nothingness".

The Big Bang could have been a one-off event from nothingness. It could have been one of a billion, a trillion, a googolplex of universes being born all at once. It could have been born from the ashes of dying universe that collapsed in on itself, or it could have been a descendent of a black hole in another universe. The Big Bang could have been set off by a supernatural being called God, or all of our reality could be a simulation in another universe's computer, just some hyper-dimensional grad student's PhD thesis.

The Big Bang theory says nothing about any of this. All it says is that the universe started out near-infinitely small, and expanded and cooled into its present state, and all the evidence we have backs this up.

"Nothing" doesn't figure into it.

The weird thing is, I knew this stuff before, which surprised me.

So, what inspired this post?

[nach_in]

I approve

[Erxomai]

Well played, sir.

[Logisch]

When someone has a misconception about how it came from nothingness, ask them where it says that and ask them to explain their perception of the big bang. 99.99% of the time it is a fundamental misunderstanding. On top of that, I don't really like "big bang" since the first extent of it, even at planck time wasn't this big flash of light or explosion, but more a big expansion. "The big expansion" would be.... more accurate. But then again, anything other than "the god particle" would be great for the higgs too... really, if a scientist reads this, please, stop giving funny names to stuff that you think people will get the nickname or funny irony of it, people won't, they're too stupid. Please keep it to something similar to what it means

[Elesjei]

All the big time creationists like Hovind have failed in describing the big bang. They always try to make the big bang seem like an absurdity - that the bang came form nothing, when no one is proposing that. The funniest part is that when they ridicule the "came from nothing" idea, they don't realize that their god explanation is exactly that.

The audience laughing when Hovind says scientists claim the universe came from nothing is classic (I don't have the clip though).

[Free Thought]

(18-11-2012 04:04 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  All the big time creationists like Hovind have failed in describing the big bang. They always try to make the big bang seem like an absurdity - that the bang came form nothing, when no one is proposing that. The funniest part is that when they ridicule the "came from nothing" idea, they don't realize that their god explanation is exactly that.

The audience laughing when Hovind says scientists claim the universe came from nothing is classic (I don't have the clip though).

That is what we call the "argumentum ad ridiculum" or Appeal to ridicule fallacy, I do it all the time.

What I am trying to do usually is make a "Reductio ad absurdum" or "Reduction to absurdity" argument (Personal Incredulity not withstanding), and it is what Hovind attempts to do, but fails more often than I do.

If a creationist doesn't go straight for the jugular with an ad hom, AaR will be their primary go to argument, and it is funny every time I see it employed, in my eyes all they are doing is serving a RaA on themselves and it never gets old!

[Vosur]

(18-11-2012 04:04 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  All the big time creationists like Hovind have failed in describing the big bang. They always try to make the big bang seem like an absurdity - that the bang came form nothing, when no one is proposing that. The funniest part is that when they ridicule the "came from nothing" idea, they don't realize that their god explanation is exactly that.

The audience laughing when Hovind says scientists claim the universe came from nothing is classic (I don't have the clip though).

In his "100 reasons why Evolution is stupid" video, Hovind repeatedly misrepresents the science of the Big Bang Theory as well. He's even being schooled by other Creationists, such as the OEC astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross.

[Dark Light]

I think all of the info in the OP is mostly general knowledge by now isn't it?

As for the nature of 'everything' though "All I know is that I don't know nothin'"

I am still hoping in a cyclical universe though

[earmuffs]

(18-11-2012 07:27 PM)Vosur Wrote:  

(18-11-2012 04:04 PM)Elesjei Wrote:  All the big time creationists like Hovind have failed in describing the big bang. They always try to make the big bang seem like an absurdity - that the bang came form nothing, when no one is proposing that. The funniest part is that when they ridicule the "came from nothing" idea, they don't realize that their god explanation is exactly that.

The audience laughing when Hovind says scientists claim the universe came from nothing is classic (I don't have the clip though).

In his "100 reasons why Evolution is stupid" video, Hovind repeatedly misrepresents the science of the Big Bang Theory as well. He's even being schooled by other Creationists, such as the OEC astronomer Dr. Hugh Ross.

"Astronomers say an argument for a young earth (6,000years old) is weaker then that of a flat earth"

Lol.

How is it that intelligent people are so fucking stupid to believe in a young earth?
This is the real sad part of religion. Right here. Intelligent people believing the bible over numerous proven scientific evidence.

Also why I don't watch debates, because it's just an actual intelligent person just arguing with fucktard.
There is no arguing with the fucktard. The only cure for the fucktard is sledgehammer repeatably to the face.

edit: ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
So the cunt in the video the German posted, Kent Hovind, is in jail for 10years for tax evasion.
Kent said that God has authority over him and the IRS have as much authority over him as the Japanese government. Yeah, well, cunt you're locked up for 10years so how's the "the IRS have no authority over me" working out for you??