And still no answer about the possible causation of the so called, "Big Bang" from Skynet. Good thing I'm not holding my breath.

__________________
Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent.

Do you REALLY want me to post my whole thesis? Well, I can post part of it, but it's a bit lengthy.

__________________
"Today a [wo]man... tomorrow a worm...and the day after - a fly!" - Marquis de Sade

Yeah sure

Fact is we still don't even understand how this universe exists.

Much less why.

But we "know" there's no God somehow

Yep, my ship she sunk

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

I don't know why you would need to post your "whole thesis" in order to tell us what caused the big bang.

__________________
Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent.

Let me guess, in it you'll explain to all of us the undebateable details of this universe, how it exists and why it exists ?

How do you have time to waste on an internet forum

These "facts" you hold are much too important to be yakking with strangers about on the internet.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

You're only wasting as much time as I am.

__________________
"Today a [wo]man... tomorrow a worm...and the day after - a fly!" - Marquis de Sade

These things take a great amount of intricacy and detail. I will give you the shortened version...

We are literally floating debris - remnants of a single substance, in which matter collided with anti-matter and produced enough radiation inflation to cause The Big Bang (which is said not to have been an actual explosion at all). Could it be that what is beyond the universe is quite simple and effortless, since our universe is finite and possibly birthed from a finite singularity? Imagine the singularity existing in a pure, raw form of energy; something far more basic than electromagnetic energy. According to the laws of nature, there must have been energy to have initially created matter. This one particle has been left without a creator. In order for an object to react, there must be an action bestowed upon it initially, which is what we call “cause and effect”. In order for “cause and effect” to exist, a force of energy must act upon something. If no other matter, light, time had begun until the very moment inflation set in, that only leaves pure energy as an evident and probable cause for everything. We know that energy cannot be destroyed, but it is interchangeable. Thus, it could be safe to assume that the universe was created by a cosmic progression of pure, raw energy building up (an energy progression, so to speak) which began over eons generating matter until the moment anti-matter collided with matter. Then light, energy and heat ignited radiation inflation, caused the cosmic microwave of the universe. There are still radiation waves present in the universe to this day. This progression coupled with the theory of a singularity follows the pattern of the creation of all life on Earth (Abiogenisis), as well as the universe and everything contained within it. For example, everything in the universe is birthed infinitesimally small. The sun started out as such until a massive radiation supernova caused an immense explosion; thus creating the solar system. Singularity itself was only the size of an atom.

Now, given the fact that energy is responsible for all creation, this means that energy initially created everything, including other forms of energy, since it has always been present without a beginning, and it has no end - making it infinite. Additionally, since infinite regression (unbounded existence of energy) is the opposite of finite progression (the universe) and we know everything exists with an opposite (for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction); it could be safe to assume that energy has been around eternally. Is it possible that outside of the known universe, there is infinite existence of a simple form of raw energy which we have not yet (or may never) discover...

__________________
"Today a [wo]man... tomorrow a worm...and the day after - a fly!" - Marquis de Sade

There can't be a God. It's not plausible.

I believe "we" understand a lot more than you do. Especially with that static universe garbage you brought up. Good gosh.

__________________
"Today a [wo]man... tomorrow a worm...and the day after - a fly!" - Marquis de Sade

If anything, that argues for a Creator, rather than against it. But really, all it did on my end was set off my BS detector.

You sure speak in a lot of absolutes where the universe is concerned. Even top astrophysicists don't speak in such absolutes. What gives?

__________________
Liberalism always generates the exact opposite of it's stated intent.

BS of what? If you don't know, then how are YOU so sure it's BS? Let's take your attitude and flip it on your person, eh. I'd like to hear your grand explanation. People who say "we don't really know" are afraid to work with what we DO know. That's not progressive.

It argues for infinite regression of energy, which means there is no first efficient cause - only a gradual causation via energy progression. This actually contrasts the theories of deists, sorry to say. You should read it again I think. I tend to WRITE in absolutes at certain times when citing a universal truth. Though, that wasn't entirely written in the context of an objective reality.

__________________
"Today a [wo]man... tomorrow a worm...and the day after - a fly!" - Marquis de Sade

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle seems to rebut, if not that point, then certainly any hope that we will ever know exactly what those laws are.

__________________
“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.” - Lord Palmerston

Here's the current thinking about the big bang.

BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon - Parallel Universes

Still begs the question, who/what started it all?

Interesting show. Kind of amusing how at this level of theory, it's pretty much just finding the most "elegant" curve fit. Hmm, if we added another dimension, that would simplify this equation...and so on. You'd have to watch the show to get my meaning.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

So, we end up exactly where I said we would earlier.

Proving that we still don't really even understand this "universe" place we inhabit. We're still thinking, studying and theorizing. Will we ever get past "thinking, studying and theorizing" about it ?

Some beleive we will, others don't beleive we will.

But one still tells us that God isn't "plausible." In otherwords we're still talking about faith - laughs -

For or against, it's faith we're talking.

__________________
Something wicked this way comes.

I know guys who got a lot of girls to screw them when they started talking about parallel universes!

Silly girls!

__________________

The "static universe" hypothesis was proposed by none other than Albert Eintstein. He developed a set of equations to describe the universe in terms of the new discovery of general and special relativity. Basically, the thinking that time is not a strictly linear variable required a rewriting and re-relating of mechanical concepts across the board - Newton needed a makeover.

When he finished, he saw that there was what he perceived to be a mathematical inconsistency between equations as it related to the curvature of spacetime. His equations dictated that spacetime and the universe size were not static, but he had decided a priori that it was, so he simply and arbitrarily added in a value called the "cosmological constant" and called it a day. However, later hypothesizing by Hubble as well as the nature of observed phenomenon caused Einstein to back away from it and for the notion to be generally discredited. As a matter of fact, Einstein famously referred to static universe/cosmological constant as his "biggest blunder".

Serious physicists do not give this line of thinking any credence. The "group" that believes in a static universe is likely some offshoot of ID/Creationism that has extrapolated science via religion to such a preposterous degree that it feels threatened in some way it doesn't really understand. The only way I can imagine this being even remotely scientific is if they're somehow confusing the coefficient that describes the shape of the universe with Hubble's description of the rate of expansion.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson