Does anyone else just get irriated when religion is hinged on the Big Bang? Or any other science? To me it is just an event, either way. The BB is not a beginning, it is part of a process of laws of physics changing how they described natural phenomenon. Argueing on way or the pother just destroys the religious feeling that is needed to search for new understanding of the greatest and most prominent mystery known to man, the presence of the Cosmos.

My main point, an explanation of nature requires both a sense of moreness behind appearances and a logical system without contradictions.

i agree, my personal belief is that there has been multiple BB's, and the universe is trillions of years old

Moe, I'm glad that a sense of dogma or societal conflict haven't clouded the reasonableness of Big Bangs as recurring happenings, in your mind.

I find that this view as i hold it doesn't require the multiverse idea neccessarily, though maybe it could be worked in, but i try to avoid it.

At least speculations like these can be talked about in a public setting nowadays, no witch hunts or threatening dry stocked stakes!

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2006/may/05/spaceexploration.universe


http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/sir-roger-penrose-alternate-theory-of-the-big-bang/

i agree with a lot of what Roger Penrose says about "things"

no reason to get excited, nobody really knows about any of it... educated guesses all around...

I think that it's given us back the sense of wonder that determinism took away. I love ideas and don't really mind if they are incorrect. Actually, I expect them to be.

Yes, a wild realm of speculative guessing, with one catch- they have to check out with reality.

Gazer, So that is a very beautiful sentiment. I mean by that that nature might itself be illogical on the deepest levels. People higher up in acedemics call such situation 'fuzzy logic' which i take to mean it makes sense, but isn't strict. SO a lot of ideas out there have to be wrong, if this basis is right. What i look for is determism in the sense that this leads to that, but not in the traditional sense that all is determined. SO there wouldn't be a game plan written out in stone at the start of time. Rather, more an improve that still hased cuased actions, but not pre set events. New ideas happen, new interactions and novel outcomes. But it is just a skeletalinclination by itself. Still, such a view may help encourage new ideas on the more scientific side of things.

,.actually big bang was just a theory it is not yet passed as law so its not yet proven to be true..

Whoa,are you talking about a Hypothesis?
BB-Theory has long left that stage!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
a bit of background.

The Big Bang is the scientific theory that is most consistent with observations of the past and present states of the universe, and it is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

until we find something else that's what we have to go on,and is the basis for other Hypotheses!

..YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT..that is why its a theory there is basis of OTHER hyphothesis, but if it is said to be a law it is scientifically proven to be true eg. The law of gravity...

I agree with hyphothalamus, ive never seen her here before but such an intelligent looking person just has to be right.

the only one claimed that actually was you!
No one claimed that the Theory of the Big Bang was a Natural Law!
You are mixing Apples and Oranges!
One studies the Laws of Nature and see how they work,then develop the Scientific Theory!

it's not even close to be proven true... just a theory, as it will always be...

the multiple big bang theory is gaining lots of respect in the scientific community... i posted a link as to what roger penrose's theory on it...

well,a scientific Theory is about as close as we get,until more Info is available!
Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a Scientific Theory,so is his Energy-Equation,and both have panned out to be true,that's why they are Scientific Theories,NOT Scientific Hypotheses!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

People keep debating whether relativity is correct or not, but it has already come to pass! It is a well experimentaly established theory.

It is interesting that there is an argument between religion and science, you do know that the Big Bang Theory was first devised and developed by a Catholic priest

So,you really think a Jesuit Priest believes in the Catholic Church's Dogma?