Well, that comment doesn't make much sense. Then again Spongebob Squarepants can light a fire underwater which is even more incredible.....I'm debating which to think about at the moment. I'll come back to you.
2006-10-10 05:30:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by SR13 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ok, so BJNM has highlighted the Creationism story of the beginnings of the Universe. William Teller did indicate this in his Causeology argument, in that there had to be maker
But you want Cosmology:
First there was nothing; an abscence of matter.
Then the Primeval atom appeared; Quantam Science has proven that Hydrogen atoms can appear out of no-where, giving possible proof to that
Then the atom started to expand; and contiued expanding in size until
BANG
There it was, billions of particles building up from the basis of this atom scattered in all directions. Flung through space and over millions of years, evolved to the beginnings of our univers.
As well as that, there is the matter that we have seen in outer space that are hurtling away from us that could indicate there was something to propel them away.
As well as that, you will notice that god seems to create the Earth twice, chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis, could it be an inconsistency, or could it be that it was written by those who loved God more than their Ps & Qs, could be.
The bible has been misinterpreted a lot in both its translation from Hebrew, till its duplication and retellings.
Case in point, ask a child: How many of each animal did god tell Noah to take to the Ark.
I bet they'll say 2 of each, but Read Chapter 7,
"Of every clean beast, that shall take thee by the sevens"
You have there an inconsistency in the way the story is told.
If you really want to know more, I suggest you study some Religious guides, or study a course in Philosophy. However my explanation at the top may help you if you just want some basic knowledge.
2006-10-10 14:39:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is no well-accepted scientific theory about anything that happened earlier than a nanosecond or so after the Big Bang.
After a nanosecond after the Big Bang, there is a lot of evidence and observation that backs up the "Concordance Model" of the Big Bang, too much to go into here.
Before that nanosecond, there are various scientific speculations. None of them involve actual, philosophical "Nothingness". Most of them involve inflationary geometries and vacuum zero-point energy, which is about as much of a "nothing" as the Universe seems to have in it. The idea is that given the quantum fluctuations of the various fields in a vacuum, and assuming that space is inflating (as space seems to be today), then every once in a long, long, long while you get a big bang. But it's just speculation.
One interesting point is that our Universe seems to be evolving toward the conditions that may create a new universe, eventually. (We're talking more than 10^100 years here.) Note that the total energy of the Universe, mass plus kinetic energy plus potential energy, may actually be zero.
2006-10-10 13:10:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by cosmo 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
According to Ancient Pangalactic History, in the beginning was a force (the main force of all other forces). When this force decided that it was time to move elsewhere, it created empty space and time (the Universe in three-d). There was never nothing and it never exploded. Matter, energy and all of the elements in the modern Universe existed at the beginning but it evolves just like everything else in the Universe big or small.
2006-10-10 12:56:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Prince Auggie 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Well what I think your asking about is Big Bang Theory. It is a theory but it is what 99% of scientists at the moment think is the most coherent explanation of the origin of the universe. They believe it was a singularity though not nothing! It was infinismally small but it was existant. They think that the big bang was caused by the collision of two P-Branes which you would need a background in string theory to know. But check pbs.org they have a video called the elegant universe that will explain the P-Brane collisions to you in a simple way.
2006-10-10 13:32:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by sphereeversion 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
First of all, the beginning of the universe...called the Big Bang...is never called an "explosion" by scientists. An explosion happens within something else, and to date science has absolutely no reason to believe that there was some "thing" prior to the Big Bang.
There is, however, an observed and verified feature of our existing universe known as zero-point-energy (..aka negative energy). In the deepest vacuum of space, which is as close to true nothingness that exists, there exists enough energy to cause matter to pop into existence. It could be that the Big Bang and our resulting universe is related to this effect.
2006-10-10 13:31:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by Chug-a-Lug 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Where is your authoritative source for 'in the beginning there was nothing'?
Astrophysicists do not claim that. There is widely accepted evidence for how the universe was down to within a fraction of a second of the 'big bang'. Before that is guesswork, extrapolation or religious belief. As long as it doesn't contradict the evidence it's down to you.
If you believe a God could create the Earth, Moon, Sun, stars and life then why couldn't he create the conditions needed for the big bang? Why set Him limits?
2006-10-10 12:50:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by DriverRob 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
This can be explained by both M-theory and Quantum mechanic but a full explanation is beyond the scope of the thread. You need to understand that it quite possible for something to come from nothing - the universe is full of particles appearing and disappearing all the time this is zero point energy.
2006-10-10 12:38:04
·
answer #8
·
answered by Mark G 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
this is not so easy to accept and not to discard math is never wrong and it says that the universe is either expanding or it is on a cycle of expanding to a fix extent and than again coinciding to a point and than again explodes i personally also not believing it but there is no contradiction of this calculation till now so wet for some better explanation or some mistake in the calculation as math cann't be wrong.
2006-10-10 12:36:22
·
answer #9
·
answered by nikhilesh m 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you believe that. I don't. I cant comprehend the fact that all matter that exists today started out in one tiny point source and exploded out. What was that tiny point source made of??? What would happen if you zoomed into it again and again? What would you find? Another universe? Another dimension? I don't bother looking for answers to questions like these. I'm still recovering from all the headaches from years ago! Better just to get on with things, accept them as they are and smile!!! :o)
2006-10-10 12:20:14
·
answer #10
·
answered by Charlie Brigante 4
·
0⤊
1⤋