Big Bang explained in 2:20
 

This just raises more questions than it could begin to answer.

I've heard these theories before their all very good in guessing the way the universe was birthed/rebirthed. I've also heard it said in videos like these that each and every atom itself can contain a sub-atomic universe and that our universe itself may be a single molecule of many in a greater being or object.

MMM, mad respect to you. But... you're the last person I would think to start such a controversal thread. You know how it's going to end up; closed.

My thoughts:


HAHAHA
I love how she explains so "clearly."
"There was nothing. And out of that bursts the universe which created stars and space and time and everything."

I just can't believe in such a thing. Even if it is just a theory.

You are the first person to bring religion into this. The big bang is neither for or against religion in my opinion. There does not need to be any debate or discussion of religion.

I mentioned religion? Hmm... news to me too.

Oh, I guess you're referring to the picture? I'll change it. Give me a minute.

You're right. This is no place for religious debate, as it's not a religious topic.
Don't know why I posted that pic. Wasn't thinking. Here's what I mean.

It's pretty clearly explained to me... what's your problem with that?

I mean questions can be asked about this concept that she introduces, questions like how did something come from nothing (if you listen later she gives possible explanations like the megaverse one or the cyclical universe expanding and collapsing one),.. but to say you know the answers to such questions (i.e. what theists do) is just ignorant.

By the way... that pic is funny... but not because of the reason you think it's funny. It merely exposes the theist way of thinking.

No ones ever stated the big bang as a fact its always been stated as a theory is there any way to discuss this without anyone arguing?

Who's arguing? This is a debate. It's what people do on forums.

This is controversial? I thought it was an interesting theory, and her explanation, though very simple, is very clear.

I can't imagine why it would get closed.

Not sure what atheism has to do with it...

Was a mistake on my part. I edited the picture.

Not just aethism..religion in general, creationism ect.

I really like this theory myself.

In America (and almost nowhere else in the world) some people like to equate religion and science.

I like this theory, too. It is interesting to imagine the Big Bang as a recurring event, or that we are in just one of who-knows-how-many parallel universes. Or maybe they aren't parallel...

I think that the Earth's population was created by a reptilian race, who is using us in a massive ant-farm experiment to harvest gold...


So they can power their alien technology.

Why is big bang, or, in this case, the big bounce, automatically mean we're atheists?

Why does understanding science mean we think there is no point to anything?

If you look hard enough, the concept that an explosion of magnitude came out of an abyss of "nothingness" is actually very deep, and potentially very spiritual.

I'd like to hear where you think everything came from, then...

Anyway, some religions do have answers as to how "nothingness" created something.

If you look at the Japanese version of the pentagram, the wheel of life, it shows 5 elements and a recurring cycle. The 5th element is void; the essence that existed and created the power when no other element did exist, i.e. big bangs.

The mistake you're making is a very big one; you automatically assume you understand everything, even when you openly say you don't. Put it this way; if I were to tell you "Belief in God is daft, how can one being possibly be so powerful?" a good Christian would scold me for being so naive, and thinking a mere human could understand Gods special essence and power. This is the same thing.

An atheist who says there is nothing, especially at the moment of the big bang, is really a bit of a moron. An intelligent man will never deny the idea that there's some things that are simply beyond his understanding and perception.

For example, we see in four color pigmentations, yet there is actually 8 that exist, and only one creature on the planet that can see them all. In that creatures eyes, we are colorblind. Is it really unscientific to assume the same disability may exist with perception of a spiritual presence? No.

Saying there is nothing may be correct, but it is also naive.

Either way, the big bounce is real, there is much more info on it that just this video. The big bounce, for now, is a theory, but the big bang is a fact. You'll have to come to terms with that.

Work spirituality with science, not around it.

The image talks wrong, like every other image made form religious people. No atheist says that there was nothingness and atheist means LACK OF BELIEF, so the image automatically makes itself invalid.

2nd, many of you call emptiness the same as nothingness. Emptiness is proven to be able to change its form based on certain reactions. You can't create anything from nothingness, no human ever witnessed such a thing, and there is no basis to say that nothingness exists. Therefore it's safe to make a theory that the universe always existed, in different forms, and the big bang is the one who made it expand to what it is today.

I hope I made myself clear to those who think atheism is what that image speaks.

And Nyoronin, atheism is not a religion...

Atheism is a lack of religion. It`s very very hard - dare I say impossible - to discuss atheism as *atheism* without bringing religion into it.

Either way - if the derailment to religion/lack of religion discussion continues, the thread WILL be closed.

Interesting video.

I remember hearing a 'multiverse' theory similar to her explanation in a video about string theory. In how these universes would collide, and that set off 'big bangs' and 'big crunches'.

I wish I could remember the title of that video.

Who is this? What have you done to Tenchu? I remember I used to tell you this kind of stuff back in the day, and you just kept on making everything Religion vs Science?! What happened?

Great video MMM. Thanks for posting.
I actually really enjoy researching these theories.
found it really interesting when she said time was created with the big bang.
I don't see how it's possible for us to know that. But she said it pretty confidently, so I'm guessing that theory was proven somehow... or she's not as smart as she thinks she is.

Although time itself is a ridiculously complicated subject. Many people believe that there's no such thing as time, that it's just an illusion, a human concept. I don't think that's true though, just pointing it out.

I agree with everything Sal said.

She speaks with confidence, but none of this has been proven. She just doesn't speak like a lawyer saying "allegedly" or "theoretically" every sentence so her points can be made clearly.

You sound more.. agnostic than atheist to me. Although agnosticism isn't really a "religion".

A lot of Catholics that I know think the Big Bang works pretty well with the bible. God says let there be light, and then boom... Big Bang occurs. I think this is complete BS, but w/e.

As was stated before, this is not a religious discussion. Those never end well, and I would hate to see this close because people can't not talk about it.

au contraire.
You simply can't talk about science without somebody bringing in religion, it just won't happen.
It's always been this way... since like.. Copernicus theorized that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, you know?

Except that religious discussions are against the rules because they always end up poorly, so I will kindly ask that the religious part of the discussion be curbed.

It seems like she's just trying to get some publicity by reiterating an already established theory...

She is telling the basics of Big Bang theory. Nothing more, nothing less. It is interesting you would guess she participated in the video for personal gain.

Ah, right. Sorry, I forgot about that.

Anyways, What do you guys think about that bouncing theory?
From what I know, that theory was thought up because of the one major problem of the original big bang theory. The problem of course being causality. What caused the big bang?
The bouncing theory eliminates that problem by stating that there was no cause, our universe has simply, always existed. It's just in an endless cycle of expanding and contracting, as explained in the video.
I find this really fascinating because of the concept of infinity. How could something exist forever without having started anywhere? How do you wrap your head around something like that? lol.

It's kinda like the "What came first? The chicken or the egg?" question.
Well... that's causality again, right? The egg, is the result of the chicken, and the chicken is the result of the egg. So where does it begin when the effect is also a cause of a new cause?

How do you know she's not? :P

what personal gain would she get out of this video? I'm pretty sure she doesn't expect to become a celebrity from this.

Besides, she isn't claiming to have thought of any of these theories herself. It's just an educational video man. lol

I am not defending her. I just said I thought it was interesting that you came to that conclusion.

I have a question.

She said something like the Big Bang could possibly be the result of another universe collapsing or something along the lines of that...

I'm curious as to where that universe came from. And if the answer is "it came from another universe collapsing," then where did that universe come from?

That's a great question. I don't know how we could ever know the answer.

Read a few posts earlier, I talked about this.

If you give me proof that everything needs to have a start (source), I'll answer you.

Thinking about this really hurts my head. You kind of get that feeling of not being able to comprehend something, and that feeling that people describe as being very small. Like a spec on a huge universe.

I can't understand infinity because nothing in my world is infinite. People say that numbers and such are infinite but such things are not physical.

You could walk around a sphere for infinity, but as a human I think that a person will die, and nothing can go on forever. It's just something I can't picture or imagine. It's a really weird feeling.

Anyway, off on a bit of a tangent. I find this whole thing really interesting. I have a strong feeling that I want to know what really happened, even in my lifetime I know I'll never know.

If you talk about physical, you are infinite. When you die, you'll turn into dust or whatever and in case some chemical reaction happens it would just change. Physically, you'd never end. Unless you say being infinite in the same form, which defeats the whole subject we're talking about... the universe has undergone many changes to become what it is now and probably will change.

Can you explain what your definitions of nothingness and emptiness are? You're saying that they're two different things, but I don't really get what this difference is.
Are you talking about a vacuum?

And also, you said:"Therefore it's safe to make a theory that the universe always existed, in different forms, and the big bang is the one who made it expand to what it is today."

Aren't you contradicting yourself there?
If the universe always existed, then there was no big bang to begin with. The bouncing universe theory doesn't rely on a big bang taking place, because the universe ALWAYS existed. There's no need for a big bang to start the universe if the universe has no start.

haha, I know what you mean. We really are insignificant though. Not only in size, but also time. The universe is presumed to have existed for about 14 billion years. (if you don't believe in that bounce theory) "Anatomically modern humans" have been around for about 200 000 years. Even if we live for another 3 billion years (I chose 3 billion cause at that point in time the milky way will collide with another galaxy and pretty much destroy all life lol) we will still only have existed for a small fraction of time (in relation to how long the universe will exist).

We really are a spec on a huge universe.