"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."

Also, the answer is 42. That is all.

:):):)

Yes. When I was in school I asked the science teacher this question. We'd done the three states of matter (plasma hadn't been invented/discovered in 1962). Solid, liquid, gas. "Q: So what's a flame?" "A: A region of intense ionization". I'm still confused!

Yes it does, it has many. Remember Moses lived to be 900 years old?


The problem I have with all these modern physics theories it seems sometimes they are just trying too hard to be cutting edge, or so abstract but on purpose. I picked up copy of the Elegant Universe a few years back and read it. Me not having any degrees or major schooling in sciences was still able to follow it for the most part. It made sense and I understood it.

Then I go out and buy a collection of Hawking's Essays. Which have to be translated to me.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/g..._universe.html

Is a great video and it is based on deep space telescope pictures. I think that the 1 thing these physicists can agree on, is that there is only 1 reality. That the universe does what it does, and that is how it works. However, a lot of them cannot agree on how it works.

Here you are: http://qgf.in/2HN1uf

While there may be a great explanation renaultsssoftware, I'm afraid that link isn't it. He's kind of selectively using parts of general relativity to justify his argument, and then just ignoring some of the more salient features of it. He's kind of made a start on something...but not really finished it.

All of that being said, I'm not a big fan of the whole concept of arguing creationism against big bang theory. The truth is that believing in strict biblical creationism is a faith based thing. If you think God created the universe in a certain way, then you just believe it, you don't need a reason other than "I believe God did it this way, it's my personal conviction." Personally I don't see an inherent contradiction in assuming that mans understanding of creation might pale in comparison to the understanding of an omnipotent deity (just a thought).

There's really no point in arguing about it. And if I'm honest, there's no harm in believing one way or the other. I don't think a firm understanding of how the Universe began is necessarily going to have a huge effect on how I treat my fellow humans (and all beings) tomorrow. And since that tends to be the central theme of most major religions, I don't see a point in arguing too much about peripheral concepts.

So, let's not get too off track by debating creationism v. big bang theory. I think the point of the thread is to deepen our understanding of big bang and string theory. And so far I've seen a lot of good explanations of the former, so...yeah, let's stick to the good stuff :).

Let's stick to the good stuff. Like what there was before the Big Bang.

I was discussing it with a classmate, and he said "Static electricity is natural. It's always been there."; insinuating that the Big Bang was caused by static electricity. I answered him with "The Big Bang created our universe and forces inside it; static electricity must've been 'created' at the same time as all the rest."

This very same classmate asked me about God: what was there before Him? The simple answer is: he created time, space and matter. He is therefore not bound by time, space and matter. We're confined to TS&M, therefore we don't understand how it all works.

It has been a while since I have studied cosmology and physics, but if I recall, the universe is theorized to have started with a single element, which later turned into several elements, which later they would combine and have reactions to one another, until all the elements reacted and caused the big bang which started the first expansion of the universe.

It has been a while so I could be off.

Sure… I guess I'll wait until I get to the "real" high school.

Origin of Life. That's interesting. Apparently, Miller-Urey type experiments can't make life, because that would only generate the hardware (e.g. the Windows box). It takes something to create the actual software, like Windows XP.

We can create self replicating DNA

http://io9.com/5543843/scientists-cr...self+replicate

This still requires intelligence, and we're intelligent. Chance - blind chance - is not intelligent.

But all we see are the chances that worked not the failed to proliferates...

Correct! Never mind Miller-Urey, because it didn't work.

I don't know that you can surmise anything from the testing of one hypothesis over the course of a week over 50 years ago. Run the experiment for another billion years and then come back to me :D.

The actual origin of life would require no intelligence, when you think about it. Panspermia -- where did the aliens come from? An explosion -- could put the motherboard, hard drive, etc. together, but not create the OS. And let's not forget the living cell is more complex than that!

What are you driving at?

So far this sounds like "argument from ignorance".

It's also my understanding that Miller-Urey did work. The goal was to examine the conditions thought to exist during early Earth and look for evidence of chemical evolution. At the time, several amino acids were found after one week. A recent re-examination found many more that hadn't been originally detected.

I don't know if this is what you were implying, but no one ever expected actual living or intelligent organisms to be found in the apparatus.

Amino acids are one part of the puzzle -- where's the DNA, RNA, enzymes, proteins? Proteins need DNA and DNA needs proteins -- it's chicken and egg all over again.

Speaking of chance. Think about the billions of galaxies, each with at least a billion stars. Some of those probably have planets. We're still talking about billions upon billions of planets. Even if there was a 0.00000000001% chance life started spontaneously it would still mean the universe is teaming with life.

Now try and "test" those chances in a laboratory. You'll have a bigger chance of winning the lottery, every day, for the rest of your life.

My concept is that the universe is a loop in the general shape of the infinity symbol. The cross sectional shape is triangular, with the galaxies being seen as points of light more dense toward one side of the triangle. There are infinite numbers of galaxies and the length of the loop is also infinite. Viewed from a distance, time could be seen slowly moving along the loop, looking to the eye somewhat like modulation of the light intensity. The Big Bang theory could be true, but since the length of the loop is already infinite, the universe isn't expanding.
I agree with SirDice, the universe is teeming with life.