[removed]

You are applying the rules of space time to something that by definition does not follow the rules of spacetime.

[deleted]

I like to say that any given Religion is a belief system, but the Scienctific Method is a disbelief system. (Literally just came up with that today, and I like it a lot.)

When scientists do science properly, they try to disprove their beliefs (i.e. hypothesis) systematically and rigorously until they simply can't find a way to disprove it. This then becomes provisionally accepted as true. However, the possibility is always there that someone will find a way to prove it false in the future, and the process continues, with each new discovery building on the foundation of knowledge that came before it.

It's the literal inverse of faith and religion.

Of course, this only applies to people doing actual science. Most people believe science the same way people believe religion - as a belief system. But IMO if you understand that the scientific method is a disbelief system, it makes believing the accepted conclusion of the Science Community much more reasonable and rational than believing the accepted conclusions of any given religion.

[deleted]

Science is about falsifying erroneous beliefs more so than enshrining "true beliefs". The Big Bang is almost certainly wrong we just haven't found out in which particular ways. Yet.

Science is a progression more than a destination.

For an excellent, accessible explanation of the whole thing - how scientists know the universe started and where it will end - I highly recommend The End of Everything by Dr. Katie Mack.

It's great that you're curious and looking to learn more about the science behind the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory is one of the most widely accepted explanations for the origin of the universe, based on observations and evidence such as the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation, redshift of light from distant galaxies, and the abundance of light elements.

However, it's important to understand that the Big Bang does not conflict with or dismiss the beliefs of those who hold religious or spiritual views. In fact, many religious and spiritual beliefs can coexist with the scientific explanation of the universe's origin. The Big Bang theory only explains the physical process and evolution of the universe, while spirituality and religion can offer a deeper understanding of the meaning and purpose of life.

So, whether you hold a scientific or spiritual view, the Big Bang and theology can both be seen as complementary perspectives that enrich our understanding of the world.

🤖

I like the "tired light" theory too, which postulates that light loses energy as it travels, so old light from faraway objects appear to be red-shifted to us.

It's not a mainstream theory and is unsupported by experimental data, but as an alternative explanation of the observed reality it has an elegance that I like.

The "big bang" theory is just this: we observe the universe expanding, so we extrapolate backwards and believe at one point the universe was very dense. We don't know what happened before that.

There is other evidence that the universe was very dense in the past, like the cosmic microwave background radiation. It's a well established theory.

As you might notice, it does not explain where the universe came from. And it also isn't incompatible with belief in God.

(I don't believe in God, but that's not because I have an evidence-based answer for where the universe came from, but because I don't see evidence that the answer is necessarily God.)

https://youtu.be/CAVUvq6BE1E

I was waiting for the ) but it just kept going.

The JWST results so far have not contradicted the Big Bang Theory. That article is contributing to misinformation and fear mongering, tbh. As Dr. Becky’s video (that u/wanderlustcub shared) explains, cosmologists are actually excited to see if JWST proposals will help constrain the “crisis in cosmology” which is basically the Hubble constant, or rate of expansion of the universe.

You don't 'truly believe in the big bang' lmao. You just understand that is the best theory we have today out of all the evidence we have. There are other theories with merit. We need more data and evidence, and either the big bang theory becomes stronger or weaker. Anyone 'believing' something impossible to prove is an idiot, whether that belief is that a god wiggled his nose or a scientific theory. Accept that we don't know everything.

[removed]

Imaged by me from Brisbane, Australia. 12.5 hrs of overall imaging time over three nights with about 4 hours each on the Sii, Ha and Oiii filters to produce this narrowband image. Used the Hubble Palette for the colour with Sii to Red, Ha to Green and Oiii to Blue. NGC 6188 is a star forming nebula, and is sculpted by the massive, young stars that have recently formed there – some are only a few million years old

First you need to be clear about is that no one "believes" in the Big Bang. Is a scientific theory, and as such, is backed up with one thing you need to learn and is EVIDENCE. However, science always evolves and always looking for answers to questions. Questions that you don't ask, and just "believe" someone just popped-up the world into existence, because that's veracious, right?

Again, if new evidence comes to light thanks to technology improvements, and proves it's not the Big bang, then it will PROVE something else did. And science will change it based on the current evidence. Evidence that's challenged by other scientists and only 2 results can happen: or they replicate the result and cement that the new evidence is strong, or else new investigations will ensue to reach the truth. That's how science works. No beliefs. Just results and evidence.

[removed]

I'm scientific and swear by the scientific method. I don't think the Big Bang Theory is the only conclusion to be made from the evidence, though.

There is a lot of terrific evidence behind it. The one point I question is why we conclude that metric space has expanded, yet the matter in it hasn't.

In 2021, there was the first mainstream physics journal article that argued that Cosmic Coupling is a thing. The researchers showed that there's a good chance a certain black hole could only have gotten so large if it's mass increased proportionately to the expansion of space.

So then if mass expands to, you don't necessarily iterate back to a single incredibly dense Big Bang precursor. The universe has simply always had its current proportions, but on an increasingly larger absolute scale throughout time. The only hint that this would have happened would be in the redshift of light that left objects when then were smaller and with less energy.

It's one possibility.

I personally don't "believe" in the big bang, or any science. So far as I can tell the point of science isn't to tell a story to believed. It's to tell a story that best fits the observed facts in repeatable ways. I don't "believe" in Newtonian physics as some fundamental truth about reality. I just use the model to understand reality. I use the model to make predictions. And I abandon the model when it doesn't stand up in face of high speed or gravity and use the story (Einstein's relativity) that best fits the observations. If I need to graph a tennis ball, Newtonian phsyics works 100%, whether you believe in it or not, whether we know it's wrong, incomplete or outdated. Doesn't matter, it still graphs the tennis ball just fine.

So saying things like "truly believe in the Big Bang" seems silly to me. We have a process where all the smart people in the world refine the best stories possible to fit all the observations we collectively make. That's not something you believe in, it's a fact, people do it, you can participate. And whether you believe their story or not does not change the fact that it is the best story we've got that can explain the facts we can observe. Belief is irrelevant, unless you are trying to use science the way people use religion, but that always seemed like a silly thing to me.

Source? I’ll genuinely consider any legitimate source you provide, but without a source to consider I’m going to presume, as a scientist, that it’s just nut jobs trying to make noise for attention. From every bit of scientific evidence that I, a scientist, have seen, there’s nothing from the James Webb scope that disputes the Big Bang.

[removed]

I may be out of the loop, but i'm pretty sure the big bang is no longer the true presiding theory most theoreticla physicists are looking at anymore. something about the amount of time everything needs to be in place after it that doesn't work or something. idk i'm not a theoretical physicist

I think you are reading a very over hyping article. Read the research behind it. It's very interesting things, but they're arguing about minute details in the timeline of the big bang. Not really suggesting the big bang didn't happen.

I don't find the question about what happened "before" (not a great word but I'll use it) space-time existed to be very interesting. We live in a universe where space time appears to be a thing so what's it matter what happens outside of it? The religious definitely think everything came from nothing, they just add the extra step of "god" in the middle.

I'm a scientist, and I'm saying that you are made of wonder bread so.....

Some scientists can say anything and have zero effect on science.