I presume that, if I undertook the same training and viewed the same research, then I would probably arrive at the same conclusion. — Wayfarer

That is entirely possible, but there is still an "if" there.

Personally, I have no special interest in Big Bang as it has no practical bearing on my everyday life and I tend to place more emphasis on who it is that knows rather than on what is known.

Other than that, you are probably right :smile:

Sure. All those guys who built the Hubble are just blowing smoke. Losers. — Wayfarer

Wasn't the Hubble a mobile telescope in the space? If there were big bang, there would have been no Hubble. They wouldn't be able to see anything through the debris and dusts in the space. The hubble is a good evidence for no big bang.

I quit my Astronomy hobby some year ago, so haven't been following. Just being realistic, nothing to do with anti science. But if you think back, the scientists in the past used to believe that the sun was rotating around the earth, and earth was flat.

Nobody watched the video on inflationary theory. :sad:

Trust your intuition, not the youtube videos :)

admonished the Pope not to appeal to science to validate religion — Wayfarer

In the sense of a simplistic version of both (which sadly few people get beyond), yes.

This cuts "both ways" because the risk is bad quality religion getting enforced on false scientific grounds (e.g in the so called "communities" being identified by materialistic sociology, cramping individual style).

The universe is analogies, all the way down — Fine Doubter

I don't disagree with that. :smile:

Trust your intuition, not the youtube videos — Corvus

Trust the force, Luke.

Sure. All those guys who built the Hubble are just blowing smoke. Losers. — Wayfarer

So where have the debris and dusts all gone after the BB? It must have gone somewhere. You are not postulating some gigantic divine recycling depot somewhere in the space out there? The sky is clear as crystal at nights. Have you ever watched the night sky? BB sounds more magical than Harry Potter's magic wand.

What force are you talking about? Adam.

What force are you talking about? Adam. — Corvus

The force where you pay attention to advances in science.

The force where you pay attention to advances in science. — frank

I do value Science, but also am aware that some of their theories are imaginative and unrealistic.
And beware there are many pseudo sciences too.

BB sounds more magical than Harry Potter's magic wand. — Corvus

When you read physicists about the Big Bang it's not described as an explosion, it's an expansion of condensed matter all at once in every direction. Big Bang is a misleading appellation.

it's an expansion of condensed matter all at once in every direction. — Tom Storm

Wow, that is a bouncy castle pumping up then. ok.

Wow, that is a bouncy castle pumping up then. ok. — Corvus

Exactly. Now you have it.

Exactly. Now you have it. — Tom Storm

So why was it condensed at first place? What was the nature of the condensed matter?

[presumably 'creation ex nihilo']

I see the phrase as similar to the frugal mother who whips up a meal "out of nothing" i.e what didn't look like much.

So why was it condensed at first place? What was the nature of the condensed matter? — Corvus

The bouncy castle pumped it up.

The bouncy castle pumped it up. — Tom Storm

There you have it too. :)

That's what they are supposed to be - along with everything else.

:100: :up:

Big Bang is a misleading appellation. — Tom Storm

Does that mean there is an intention to mislead? Or is it unintentional?

It misleads because physicists maintain there was no explosion. The term was started as a joke by Fred Hoyle.

So why was it condensed at first place? What was the nature of the condensed matter? — Corvus

Not only that, but why did it suddenly decide to expand all over the place in all directions all at once and without making a sound or saying something? That's acting suspiciously, no? :wink:

it may have been a whimper rather than a bang to misquote TS Elliot. — Tom Storm

That is what I thought.

And if it wasn't a "bang", then maybe it wasn't "big" either?

Changed my comment.

I'm not debating if the science is accurate (how would I know?) just what they say it was.

:ok: :smile:

Not only that, but why did it suddenly decide to expand all over the place in all directions all at once and without making a sound or saying something? That's acting suspiciously, no? :wink: — Apollodorus

Yeah, come to think of it, the bouncy castle belief on the BB theory sounds more esoteric than the explosion scenario. That would have looked like a scene in Harry Potter. :)

PSA: Scientific illiteracy makes for bad, or pseudo, philosophizing. Doubt requires grounds, otherwise it's idle and onanistic. :eyes:

Well even if that is the case, that still leaves the question of why there was a Big Bang in the first place. — HardWorker

My view is that the Big Bang occurred because it was logically possible and logical possibility = existence.

These days scientists use "Big Bang" to just refer to the expansion of the early universe. It doesn't refer to a singularity at the beginning.

See the video.