Big bang theory question?
Topic: Characteristics of a hypothesis
May 26, 2019 / By Georgia Question:
mass takes up space
all mater has mass
so for matter to exist there must be empty space for it to occupy
space is a characteristic of a universe
the big bang is the creation of the universe
so that would mean that at the time before the big bang that existence did not exist and there was no empty space or space at all
but the big bang was caused by hydrogen and heluim exploding
but hydrogen and heluim are matter that take up space which did not exist so im asking is how could matter exist before the start of everything including space and if you say pre big bang there was space and matter than what did the big bang start
it be more like a huge expansion of the current universe not the creation of a new one if it happened at all unless the our universe is a black hole theory is true but than your left with the question what caused the first big bang to make the first universe i just dont understand how matter could exist before existent
based on my research i believe that there is a god that had divine intervintion and this world is almost like his gaint math problem everything is math and every event was determined to happen mathmeticaly at what time before creation and that no religon is wrong but is other people telling about the same event based on there culture fables geo influnces capcity time and there needs and changed through telphone game
but still the big bang does not offer a begining because if all mater and energy was in a singularity there was still matter which means that the big bang was not the start of existence because matter and energy even traped into the singularity still existed and one cannot exist before existence so the big bang might of been the creation of our universe but not excistece and even though there gravity is considered infinite they still have gravity wich means there has to be space for it to indent into
Best Answers: Big bang theory question?
Delma | 10 days ago
Your question is not about the Big Bang theory.
The Big Bang theory is NOT about the creation of the universe. The Big bang theory can only describe what happens after a moment called the Planck Time; at that moment, the universe already existed, energy was already present and space was already expanding.
The Big Bang was NOT caused by hydrogen and helium exploding: it is well known that hydrogen and helium came after the Planck Time, and that their coming into existence is very well explained with relatively simple scientific principles.
The Big Bang theory was started by a priest and, because of that, some scientists at the time (read about Fred Hoyle) really thought that it was only an attempt to give God a role to play in the creation of the universe. I'm sure that Father Lemaitre thought that there was divine intervention involved. However, he was also a university professor (mathematics and cosmology) so he made sure to tell his students that the theory was only the application of scientific knowledge; therefore, it should work, whether one believes in God or not.
Many religions assert (some of them somewhat violently) that they are the only true religion. Since dissimilar religions cannot be ALL the only true religion, then some religions MUST be wrong.
The Big Bang theory describes the behavior of a universe where the energy content is constant and where the energy density (a.k.a. the temperature of the universe) decreases as space expands. That is it. It is based on hypotheses that are supported by observation, and is supplemented by scientific principles from many different branches of science.
- The universe contains energy.
- Space expands.
- The universe appears hotter in the past.
When we use the theory backwards (to see what the universe could have looked like in the past) we hit a wall: at some point in the past, the energy density would have been so high that we no longer understand how things work. This moment is called the Planck Time.
There are a few things that we do understand about that moment:
- energy already existed (the Planck Time is NOT the creation of energy)
- space was already expanding (the Planck Time is NOT the creation of space)
- matter could not exist - it came into existence minutes after.
- the forces could not exist - they only came into existence seconds after
- even the fundamental particles could not exist
We are not sure if gravity existed at that moment but if it did not, it came into existence very soon after.
We are not sure how time itself could have flowed at that moment (or before); this does not mean time did not flow - it only means that we do not understand how.
To put it bluntly: we do not know how to apply the word "before" to that moment.
Therefore, some people go around claiming that this moment is the "beginning" of the universe. This might be an exaggeration. The only thing we can say is that the Planck Time marks the beginning of the universe "as we understand it". For all we know, "something" might have been expanding forever "before" that moment (whatever "before" means).
👍 288 | 👎 10
Did you like the answer? Big bang theory question?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: Characteristics of a hypothesis
Originally Answered: Those of you who disparage biological evolution as "just a theory," would you please define scientific theory?
From the creationist site "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use":
"“Evolution is just a theory.”
What people usually mean when they say this is “Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.” ...The problem with using the word “theory” in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known theories such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, as well as lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions. "
People too often equate "Theory" with "wild guess." A better term is "explanation." Consider: "The explaination of evolution." sound much different.
The problem to quote from another creationist site:
"The "belief that each person was capable" denies the reality that the average person is utterly unequipped to evaluate ...claims in a vacuum. It is only when those claims are challenged by alternative scientific information that the average person would have the slightest clue that ... might even be questionable."
Most believers in "Evolution is only a theory" have firm biases and a lack of background in the scientific method.
I'm only going to talk about part of this. "but the big bang was caused by hydrogen and helium exploding" This is not true, there was no hydrogen or helium. We don't know what caused the initial expansion in the big bang.
As far as how space came be to in the first place, well that's outside the scope of the big bang theory. In a VERY simplified form the big bang theory states that in the beginning of the universe all of the matter was contained in a very small space and then for some reason this space started to get bigger. Trying to use this theory to explain how space came to be in the first place is like trying to use Kepler's theory of orbits to explain why the Sun is there. It just doesn't work.
👍 120 | 👎 4
Before the Big Bang, present theory says all of the energy and matter that exists today was compressed into a point of singularity. Laws of physics don't apply to such a point. As to your point that Hydrogen and Helium take up space, that is not relevant to the period before the Big Bang. Hydrogen and Helium did not exist until after the Big Bang and expansion took place. More exotic particles existed initially, which cooled and combined with early expansion to form Hydrogen and Helium.
👍 111 | 👎 -2
i do no longer help the concept. As you assert the branches of Physics, arithmetic, and topological astronomy besides as different sciences are only to lots to place all of it at the same time. recall the large bang is only an concept and not a actuality! It won't be able to be shown as a actuality! Even Hawkings won't be able to get decrease back to point 0, and he on no account will. the clarification is he's calling for the beginning up. So, enable us to now placed the large bang on the shelve for a minuet and enable us to inspect the expanse of the universe as constantly being there. no longer each little thing it is in it. yet an expanse that has constantly been. we now have a beginning factor! an empty eternal expanse that has constantly been there. each little thing interior the expanse we see today has order This we call the universe.It maintains to strengthen interior the eternal expanse. each little thing follows all the regulations of physics, and math. So only how did the three dimensional universe as all of us comprehend it initiate? all of us comprehend from Einstein's formulation E=MC^2 that we are able to get ability from count. We additionally comprehend from Newton's regulation of physics that each and each action has an equivalent reaction. So, taking dynamic ability one would desire to create each little thing and initiate the action of each little thing created interior the expanse with order. is that this logical? confident! Is it real? It should be with the aid of fact we proceed to locate extra approximately it making use of the regulations of physics and arithmetic. So this would open the largest question of all, only who or what created it? This my pal i will depart as much as you to settle on.
👍 102 | 👎 -8
Your meter and rhyme is all wrong.
Here is an example of a four-line stanza scheme from 'To Anthea, Who May Command Him Any Thing' by Robert Herrick:
Bid me to weep, and I will weep
While I have eyes to see;
And having none, and yet I will keep
A heart to weep for thee.
You may also wish to read up a bit about the Big Bang theory
👍 93 | 👎 -14
your understanding of the 'big Bang' is... limited. And not really right.
But you just go right ahead, there!
👍 84 | 👎 -20
Originally Answered: How come creationists don't have a problem with the theory of relativity or germ theory?
Anyone who would use a straw man fallacy by making up a creationist's opinion in order to criticize it is not worth debating. Learn how to argue without being fallacious.The science is the same. It is certainly possible to look at the evidence and come up with a different conclusion to the Darwin evolutionary position. Indeed, many would see that the evidence fits perfectly well with a design position.
Edit: As works in progress, many scientific theories just keep getting revised. For example, we base our current evolutionary theory of when humans diverged from apes on the fossil record. But every time a new fossil is found, the date gets pushed back.
In any case, this means is that any information given in student text books is considered to be “true” only at the time the book is published. (Now you see why you always have to buy the newest editions of those expensive college texts?)
Here are a couple ...
There are 109 Elements in the Period Table ... New information: Since 1994, six new elements have been discovered.
Prior to scientists embracing the notion that the universe was created as the result of the Big Bang, it was commonly believed that the size of the universe was an unchanging constant—it had always been the size it was, and always would be. The idea stated that that the total volume of the universe was effectively fixed, and that the whole construct operated as a closed system. The theory found its biggest adherent in Albert Einstein—the Static Universe is often known as “Einstein’s Universe”—who argued in favor of it and even calculated it into his theory of general relativity.