question on the big bang theory...

[thugfella]

irst, all this is just from my knowledge so forgive me if i get anyting wrong<br /><br />The theory about the big bang is that everything was gettin pulled in really close it all got too much and exploded everthing out makin our universe<br /><br />If everythin was gettin smaller at the start then it would hav to had been 'eternally' getting smaller, which would mean that at one point the universe would have been the size it is now. meanin the big bang doesnt explain the start of the universe just the 're-birth'.<br /><br />im not sure if this is true or not, just one of my many thoughts but if someone could prove me wrong i would be grateful.

 

[Saiph]

that's a possible <i>end</i> for the big bang.<br /><br />We don't know what was going on prior to our BB. We could be the first, we could be part of a cycle. I don't think we <i>can</i> know.<br /><br />now, if the universe is finite (which it can be) there's no reason why it couldn't eventually get to a single point. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[nexium]

You described the repeating big bang theory, which I think was more popular 50 years ago. My guess is none of the theories are very close to reality. Look for more variations throughout the 21 century. None of the theories explain a first cause, except a violation of causeality ie a time traveler traveled back to the beginning and made (the first) God, or the cosmic egg which became the (first) big bang = a not very satisfing explanation. An eternal (no beginning) universe and/or God is also difficult to accept.<br />There is much related speculation in the thread "The Universe, what was before the Universe was created?" This tread is also in "Ask the astronomer". Neil

 

[newtonian]

ThugFella - That is one version of the old Oscillating theory of the universe - it only fits if our universe will collapse again, and current evidence is that our universe will expand eternally.<br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

Neil - Hi!<br /><br />Yes. I agree that an eternal universe in the past is no longer tenable scientifically, although it was taught as one of 3 major theories of the origin of our universe when I was in high school - i.e. the big bang, the steady state theory (no beginning), the oscillating theory.<br /><br />Genesis 1:1 indicates our universe had a beginning - we agree on that.<br /><br />Just curious why you would find the existence of a First Cause, as in God, difficult to accept?<br /><br />Do you find the alternative, an infinite number of past causes and effects, more tenable, or easier to accept? <br /><br />Or the violation of causality, i.e. a violation of the law of conservation of matter and energy? <br /><br />To me, a First Cause is much more tenable than the alternatives - but I am interested in understanding why others come to different conclusions.