What do ATHIESTS say caused the BIG BANG?

Astro Physicist Samuel Ting thinks if the universe truly came from a big bang, in the beginning, if the world came from a big band, there must be an EQUAL amount of anti matter as there is matter, otherwise it would not have come from a vacuum.

Where is the world made out of anti-matter?

I wouldn't say linear time has been "proven" wrong. If you have data, I'd appreciate the link. I have seen some compelling evidence supporting the idea though. Holographic universe, where everything that has ever happened, is happening right now, or will ever happen, is happening RIGHT NOW. It's hard to imagine without looking into the details, but the details are interesting. I tend to lean toward the idea that time is not linear, but I haven't seen conclusive data yet.

Isn't that we call dark energy/matter? I think it's more than half of the "stuff" out there that we can detect, but can't see.

So we think. Unclear what his most recent findings indicate. Curious to see ISS reports.

I want to go down to the junkyard adn get a bunch of trash cars, put them in a pile, blow them up and then have the ride of my life.

That's how it works, right?

"if the world came from a big band, there must be an EQUAL amount of anti matter as there is matter"

I'm not sure I would agree fully. Whos to say there isn't?

That might be how it appears to someone who doesn't understand math.

e=mc2. For this to be true, and for the universe to come from a vacuum, equal and opposite, well, you know the deal.

Yeah, I'll have to look into the work being done by Samuel Ting. ISS is a great asset in attempting to understand what's true. I heard recently they were able to conduct experiments that previously weren't possible because they require zero gravity. They finally ran the tests, and I very briefly heard that they had some impressive results. I think it had something to do with agriculture. Haven't read it yet.

Are there experiments with data that suggest that there isn't an equal amount of matter/antimatter in the universe? A "vacuum" really isn't what we used to think.

It turns out a "vacuum", which classical physics refers to as empty space, is actually the largest energy reservoir in the universe, and is where all observable matter and energy come from and go back to.

Everything humans know about has a beginning and an end.
So they make the assumption the universe and especially this planet does as well. Alpha and omega.

But there is another way available to define time in science and math, INFINITY.



It time is a linear function it would be true that a line must have a beginning and an end.


But it isn't. Time is not a straight line, it is a curved "path" that goes on forever and eventually will come back to this same moment in "time". Time is just a way to keep everything form happening at once IN OUR REALITY.


The universe has always been. Wrap your mind around the reality that not everything has a beginning and an end and it is easy to resolve.

There is NO WAY to explain how *something* came to be in the absence of *anything* in the first place so the only truly logical conclusion is there was no beginning. Or end. Think of a circle. If you follow a circular path you always come back to the same point, and it just goes on forever

The analogy goes like this; "believing the complexity and intricate and practically infinitely complex interrelationships of the universe were formed from an explosion of nothing is no different that believing a tornado can assemble a functional fleet of 757's from an empty junk pile. In fact it is even more asinine.

The basic laws of thermodynamics conflict in direct contradiction to the big bang "theory" even being remotely a possibility.

" the universe were formed from an explosion of nothing "

That statement is incorrect. Have you read the second law of thermodynamics? "Nothing" is fantasy. There is no such thing. If there is, we are unable to observe it, or recreate it in a lab. There is no such thing as "nothing". Like Santa. Or perfection. No such thing.

I'm sure glad you understand. Now if you can just convince all those particle physicists, cosmologists, and mathematicians they're wasting their time. I'm sure they just haven't thought of the ridiculousness of their endeavor to understand the universe. Probably an oversight you could get a Nobel prize for bringing to the attention of the scientific community. I'd caution you however to be prepared for the peer review. It can be agonizing.

No one cares what they think.

The big Pull my finger!

ATHEISTS think our universe began naturally, not supernaturally.

Thread: ANY religious/historic tenet/belief should be examined in two ways for clarity.

Best theory so far is that there are multiple universes that all begin on such a small and powerful level that current physics cannot explain it. The minute and power scales overpower current physics.

Almost like kernels of popcorn in a popper. Once the conditions are right, they violently explode into individual popped corn units.