Magical Sailor Fuku

I don't think the Big Bang Theory explains much of anything of importance, so I don't believe in it.

No. For several reasons I don't feel I should state, if only to avoid religious disputes.

So it's not totally brown-nosing.

Religious issues aside, I don't think the Big Bang Theory gives any substantial evidence to support its claim. In the end, it seems that it boils down to this impossible equation.

Nothing + Time = Something

I don't think so...

Well, I don't think anyone will be able to conceive how anything exists at all. Because it always goes back to a common denominator that can't itself be explained. Whether it's the existence of God or the four elements that somehow broke down to cause the Big Bang, how did the things before the creation of the universe come to be? How can something always (or never) be?

My solution has been to think of everything as nothing, and that that nothing is actually something. Chaos, basically. My basis for it lies within how everything seems to have a duality, where something can be one thing, or its opposite, at any given time. It even shows up in our concepts, with such things as: for a left there is a right, for a good there is an evil, and for a right there is a wrong.

So, why don't I believe in the Big Bang Theory? It only addresses the expansion of the universe, and leaves out the contraction. It assumes that the universe existed some odd years ago based on the evidence of the beginning of just one expansion. But if you look around the universe, it's full of stars exploding and then coalescing into new stars. And yet scientists expect the universe to end once the expansion spreads to a certain point. Who's to say that everything won't then start to contract until it reaches the point before the "big bang" and do it all over again? I mean, isn't everything else that we see cycles and processes? Why not existence, too? That's the sort of chaotic thing that I can believe in: not in an infinite or finite universe, but a universe that is infinite in its finiteness.

I vote for pie

You can't! So shut your pie hole!

Well, I personally think it would be important. If we work out what happened we may be able to work out WHY it happened.

Mendokusee wrote:Religious issues aside, I don't think the Big Bang Theory gives any substantial evidence to support its claim. In the end, it seems that it boils down to this impossible equation.

Nothing + Time = Something

I don't think so...

Nothing + Time = Profit!!

I have worked out everything!!

Empyrean Nikkou wrote:You can't! So shut your pie hole!

NO U *hits Nikkou in the face with a cream pie.*

*Eats it*

This pie hole was made for eating pie! Foolish mortal~

And to those who believe the big bang explains the creation of the universe: I feel for you. I really do. But we all can't be "winners", can we?

A theory is a theory, not a law. So I'll leave the big bang as such.

That doesn't stop theories from being used as laws, though. Still, a good (if somewhat evasive) answer.

Empyrean Nikkou wrote:Who's to say that everything won't then start to contract until it reaches the point before the "big bang" and do it all over again?

There was a time when scientists seriously thought this would be the ultimate fate of the universe. However, there is just too much mass moving outwards from the center for the galaxies to reverse their outward motion, so...

Or so they think. I know what one of their theories is on that, about how things are speeding up and in a long time nothing but protons will exist. I don't buy it. It doesn't make sense for existence, which no one can figure out the beginning of, to have an end. All that they know is that stuff started to expand at a certain point, but not how that stuff got there in the first place. Besides, if that were the end, then it would make the beginning evident; and it works the other way around, too. I still see no eureka moment, or even an explanation for the vast majority of mass/gravity/energy that we notice the presence of but can't see.

Empyrean Nikkou wrote:That doesn't stop theories from being used as laws, though.

Yes it does, that's why science bothers to make such a distinction between things that can't be conclusively proven (yet), and laws which have been proven.

It's why there's the LHC. If nothing happens, then oh well. If something haaaaaaaaaappens, then there may be some revisions to theories, postulates, and maybe a new law or five.