Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
This is not correct. The total amount of energy and mass in the universe is zero. The only "thing" (for lack of a better word) that was created was organization. And since organization is not actually a thing, literally "nothing" was created. All that happened was that the universe (yes I know there was no universe yet but I don't know what else to call the... er... space... where it now exists) went from a state of maximum entropy (complete lack of organization) to a state of less entropy (organization now exists).Spontaneous creation by accident is absurd.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics allows for this. It says that entropy tends to increase over time, but it does not do so monotonically. Spatially and temporally local reversals of entropy are possible, and furthermore there is no size limit on them. The Big Bang may have been one big mother of a local reversal of entropy (and how would we know? What do we have to compare it to?) but it did not violate any natural laws and it did not result in any paradoxes.
Yes there is one, and it's called randomness. Again, this does not violate the Second Law so long as the complexity decreases over time, which it is in fact doing as we speak.There must be processes in place that enable energy to organize into more complex forms over time.
Like many people, you seem unable to comprehend the things that can happen by chance, if chance is given thirteen billion years and a rather large expanse of space in which to work.
You have just alerted us to the fact that you are prone to hyperbole, which automatically makes us skeptical of anything else you plan on saying.I have watched every documentary ever made . . . .
It's not a settled fact like evolution or plate tectonics, but it is a hypothesis for which a huge volume of evidence exists. It is not quite a canonical scientific theory like relativity, but it has achieved enough status that anyone who argues against it must satisfy the Rule of Laplace: Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect. In other words, if you want us to continue reading your objections to the Big Bang, you need to immediately provide extraordinary evidence for your doubt. As others have already noted, you have not provided such evidence. Your citations have been found not to be respecable.. . . . and never saw anyone propose a theory that did not involve the big bang. In fact, they all talk about it as if it were a settled fact.
A "realization"? Is that something akin to a "hunch"? Scientists have hunches all the time, but they don't publish them. They apply the Scientific Method to them, specifically looking for evidence in the form of empirical observation or logical reasoning, then asking for others to peer-review them, then finally publishing them and allowing the entire community of scientists to weigh in.But recently I had a realization that our universe requires more of a cause and effect explanation.
You appear to be here asking for a peer review, but I don't see any evidence for us to review.
Rather than repeat yourself, you need to go deeper. Please find the evidence that supports your hypothesis.So this is my 3rd Topic post within 1 week suggesting the universe evolved in some way.
As other members have already told you, these are not "top scientists." Your appeal to authority (which is always a perfectly crappy way to support an argument anyway) has failed.I just discovered tonight that I am not the first person to suggest that the Universe Evolved. 33 top scientists . . . .
Bullshit. It sounds like you're talking about one of the very "soft sciences" like linguistics, in which no one is terribly certain of his findings, but since he's built his career on them he can't afford to let them be challenged. Practitioners of the "hard sciences" have much more evidence to work from, not to mention the fact that they can perform experiments, something the soft-scientists often can't do. So in their disciplines they can afford to act like true scientists and confront dissent honestly. (Yes, "corporate science" is a big exception to this rule, because those guys aren't trying to discover the truth, but rather looking for justifications for their employer to market its products.)The letter goes on to say "Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt," in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding."
Another member has already made this comment, but it's so important that I'm going to repeat it:I haven't done the math, but . . . .
IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE THE MATH, THEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT!
This is not an academy and you should know that because if it were one nobody would have let you in. We don't expect people to come here with an armload of papers asking us to peer-review them ourselves--if only because most of us are not professional scientists and are not qualified to perform that peer review.See the full article by googling big bang 33 scientists rense
We expect YOU to perform the peer review, and write us a short summary of what you learned.
Since it appears that you don't have the qualifications to do that (you haven't done the math!), I don't know who among us feels like wasting his time doing your own work for you.