What Caused the Big Bang?

Fascinating. As a follow-up to our last post on "the God Particle" discovery as the building block of the universe, this subject compels, and shows that the human mind is currently uncapable of comprehending this subject. A truly humbling experience...T



For almost one hundred years, we have known that the universe is expanding. We have traced this expansion back in time, through to the very beginning when the universe occupied an infinitesimal point in space. This was the state of the universe at time t=0, over 13 billion years ago.

It is from this starting point that everything we are familiar with came into existence: protons, neutrons, stars, galaxies - even space and time itself are here. At time t=0, this point began an unprecedented inflation, in this instant time and space were born. This event has become known as the Big Bang.

The big bang is our current, most accepted theory for how the universe began. It was inspired by the discovery that the universe is expanding.

It was an unusual and highly counterintuitive event. It was not an explosion, it did not occur inside anything, rather, everything that we are familiar with: left, right, up, down, cause and effect, the stage for all physical laws, was getting larger.

We possess a natural curiosity of the world around us. We want to know how and why things are the way they are.

This curiousity has served us well because it carries significant survival benefits. If we see an event and ask ourselves why it happened or what caused it, we are more likely to spot a threat before it becomes dangerous in the future.

Our curiosity gives us the ability to look beyond the present moment. From it, we have evolved an urge to look for causes, it is an inseparable part of our biology. Because of this, we really can't help ourselves when we attempt to find a cause for creation, it is second nature for us to ask, 'What Caused the Big Bang?'

Any answer to this problem must begin with a key realization: both time and space are contained within the universe and came into existence only AFTER the Big Bang occurred. The cause of the universe must not include them, they are not available to us. It must come from outside our experience.

In this realm, the solution, whatever it is, will seem very strange to us, and it will almost certainly make no sense to our brains because here, it is possible to have an event with no cause. There is no time, there is no before in which the Big Bang could have occurred, there simply is no cause and effect.

We must somehow come up with a solution that exists outside time and space.

GOD MADE IT HAPPEN

For many "God caused the big bang" is a perfectly reasonable response. This seems to help many cope with the unsatisfying prospect of an event without a cause.

The problem of course is that one is then immediately forced to ask, "From where did the creator come?"

If the answer is "he always existed" then we have a situation, from a causality standpoint, that is no more satisfying than a universe that springs forth from nothing. A creator that has always existed is an entity that somehow exists without a cause.

So this answer doesn't solve the causality issue whatsoever.

THIS UNIVERSE IS ONE OF MANY

Further, the idea of cyclical universes doesn't solve it either.

For reasons having to do with entropy and the second law of thermodynamics the process of an ever cycling universe - one that continually expands and contracts - cannot be perfectly efficient. This means that each successive expansion will take a little longer than the previous one.

If each previous universe is, say, half as long as the one that succeeds it, and the one before that half as long, this infinite sum does eventually converge to a universe with zero length with no obvious past and we are back again to at least one big bang starting for no obvious reason.

OUR BIOLOGY BETRAYS US

The real problem with this question of what caused the big bang is ultimately a biological one; our brains have evolved to assume that everything has a cause, we can't imagine any event ever not having one.

But 100 years ago, we couldn't imagine that our galaxy was only one in an ocean of one hundred billion. 200 years ago, we couldn't imagine that the stars were more than 13,000 light years away. 500 years ago, we couldn't imagine that the Earth revolved around the Sun. If our past enquiries into the universe are any guide, the truth of the cosmos is always more than we have imagined.

The answer to the cause of the universe will almost certainly be something strange and, by definition, wholly beyond our experience. Our occluded brains must always be open the answer, especially when asking questions that push the limits of our capacity to understand.
Full article in new window

Related articles

• "God Particle" found: Elemental building block of the universe
• A nice little video on the origin of the Universe [youtube]
• Galaxies produced stars shortly after Big Bang
• The first fractions of a second after the Big Bang
• The mass of the universe is constant, which means that it could not have been created
• The first fractions of a second after the Big Bang
• The Big Bang Theory
• Giant space observatory to probe Big Bang light - Irish Examiner
• Galaxies 'Birthed' Stars Shortly After Big Bang: New Telescope Reveals Unprecedented Detail

"God Particle" found: Elemental building block of the universe

This is astounding.....If the universe is so elegantly organised, then the question begs: Who, or what, organised it?...T



The search is all but over for the so-called God particle that is a crucial building block of the universe.

 Physicists said on Thursday they believe they have discovered the sub-atomic particle predicted nearly half a century ago, which will go a long way toward explaining what gives electrons and all matter in the universe size and shape.

The elusive particle, called a Higgs boson, was predicted in 1964 to help fill in our understanding of the creation of the universe, which many theorise occurred in a massive explosion known as the Big Bang.

A representation of traces of a proton-proton collision measured in the search for the Higgs boson. Photo: AP

The particle was named for Peter Higgs, one of the physicists who proposed its existence, but it later became popularly known as the God particle.

 Advertisement Last July, scientists at CERN, the Geneva-based European Organisation for Nuclear Research, announced finding a particle they described as Higgs-like, but they stopped short of saying conclusively that it was the same particle or some version of it.

Scientists have now finished going through the entire set of data year and announced the results in a statement and at a physics conference in the Italian Alps.

 "To me it is clear that we are dealing with a Higgs boson, though we still have a long way to go to know what kind of Higgs boson it is," said Joe Incandela, a physicist who heads one of the two main teams at CERN that each involve about 3000 scientists.

  Its existence helps confirm the theory that objects gain their size and shape when particles interact in an energy field with a key particle, the Higgs boson. The more they attract, the theory goes, the bigger their mass will be.

  But, it remains an "open question", CERN said in a statement, whether this is the Higgs boson that was expected in the original formulation, or possibly the lightest of several predicted in some theories that go beyond that model.

But for now, it said, there can be little doubt that a Higgs boson does exist, in some form.

 Whether or not it is a Higgs boson is demonstrated by how it interacts with other particles and its quantum properties, CERN said in the statement. The data "strongly indicates that it is a Higgs boson", it said.

The discovery would be a strong contender for the Nobel Prize, though it remains unclear whether that might go to Higgs and the others who first proposed the theory or to the thousands of scientists who found it, or to all of them. Read more:
Full article in new window

Related articles

• Physicists say have found a Higgs boson
• Higgs boson case strengthened by new CERN data analysis - Newsday
• Physicists pinpoint 'God particle'
• Higgs boson - Brisbane Times
• Higgs boson particle found - physicists
• Physicists say have found a Higgs boson
• A representation of traces of a proton-proton collision measured in the search for ...
• Physicists claim to have found 'god particle'
• Why CERN Refuses To Say It Discovered The Higgs Boson
• Cern physicists: We found Higgs boson 'God particle' with Large Hadron Collider

Is Global Warming a Religion? You decide!

Revisiting an old proof (for me!), more definitive evidence that man-caused global warming is nothing but a colossal socialist power grab. HEIL OSAMA!...T

Global Warming Is a Religion

By Walter E. Williams (Archive) · Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Manmade global warming, for many, is an Earth-worshipping religion. The essential feature of any religion is that its pronouncements are to be accepted on the basis of faith as opposed to hard evidence. Questioning those pronouncements makes one a sinner. No one denies that the Earth's temperature changes. Millions of years ago, much of our planet was covered by ice, at some places up to a mile thick, a period some scientists call "Snowball Earth." Today, the Earth is not covered by a mile of ice; a safe conclusion is that there must have been a bit of global warming. I don't know the cause of that warming, but I'd wager everything I own that it was not caused by coal-fired electric generation plants, incandescent light bulbs and SUVs tooling up and down the highways.

The very idea that mankind can make significant parametric changes to the Earth has to be the height of arrogance. How about a few questions because temperature is just one characteristic of the Earth. The Earth's orbit is another. If all 6.5 billion of us, all at once, started jumping up and down for a little while, do you think we'd change the Earth's orbit or rotation? Do you think mankind could change the direction and timing of the ocean's tides? Is there anything that mankind can do to stop or start a tsunami or hurricane? You say, "Williams, it's stupid to suggest that mankind could change the Earth's orbit or rotation, ocean tides or cause or stop a tsunami or hurricane!" You're right and it's also stupid to think that mankind's activities can make globalized changes in the Earth's temperature.

To read the rest follow the link

http://patriotpost.us/opinion/walter-e-williams/2010/01/13/global-warming-is-a-religion/


The New Forced Global Warming Religion = Pseudoscience



The Religion Of Global Warming



John Stossel - is Global Warming Science or Religion pt.1 of 2



John Stossel - is Global Warming Science or Religion pt.2 of 2



Full article in new window

Related articles

• Global Warming (socyberty.com)
• Key pact in global warming fight (politico.com)
• Global Warming Confab Brings a Record Chill to Cancun (dakotavoice.com)
• The Ulsterman Report: Global Warming Excuses Blowing Up Children? (socyberty.com)

UK Environment minister: "I still think man-made climate change is a con"

Well it seems the word is spreading, finally! Even this socialist minister in (the formerly) Gr.Britain can see that those hurt disproportionally are the developing countries...CO2 driven climate change is a monstrous scam perpetrated by modern day leftists, whose hysteria cloaks the simple hunger for ever more government, ever more redistribution of income - theft - and De facto communism by fiat...T

Spending billions on trying to reduce carbon emissions is one giant con that is depriving third world countries of vital funds to tackle famine, HIV and other diseases, Sammy Wilson said.

The DUP minister has been heavily criticised by environmentalists for claiming that ongoing climatic shifts are down to nature and not mankind.

But while acknowledging his views on global warming may not be popular, the East Antrim MP said he was not prepared to be bullied by eco fundamentalists.

“I’ll not be stopped saying what I believe needs to be said about climate change,” he said.
"Most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about it

“I think in 20 years’ time we will look back at this whole climate change debate and ask ourselves how on earth were we ever conned into spending the billions of pounds which are going into this without any kind of rigorous examination of the background, the science, the implications of it all. Because there is now a degree of hysteria about it, fairly unformed hysteria I’ve got to say as well.

“I mean I get it in the Assembly all the time and most of the people who shout about climate change have not read one article about climate change, not read one book about climate change, if you asked them to explain how they believe there’s a connection between CO2 emission and the effects which they claim there’s going to be, if you ask them to explain the thought process or the modelling that is required and the assumptions behind that and how tenuous all the connections are, they wouldn’t have a clue.

“They simply get letters about it from all these lobby groups, it’s popular and therefore they go along with the flow — and that would be ok if there were no implications for it, but the implications are immense.”

He said while people in the western world were facing spiralling fuel bills as a result of efforts to cut CO2, the implications in poorer countries were graver.

“What are the problems that face us either locally and internationally. Are those not the things we should be concentrating on?” he asked.

“HIV, lack of clean water, which kills millions of people in third world countries, lack of education.
“A fraction of the money we are currently spending on climate change could actually eradicate those three problems alone, a fraction of it...
Full article in new window

The 12 Days Of Global Warming

In the "spirit of the holidays"...Merry Christmas!...T

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

And now come the FACTS!

Be sure to read and save the whole lengthy piece, as all the conclusive evidence is therein linked, as it is too long to post in it's entirety here. Also, be sure and add Tom Nelson , MS, to your Blogroll for the facts on Anthropogenic Global Climate Change.

Study: Half of warming due to Sun! –Sea Levels Fail to Rise? - Warming Fears in 'Dustbin of History'

POZNAN, Poland - The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The U.S. Senate report is the latest evidence of the growing groundswell of scientific opposition rising to challenge the UN and Gore. Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices and views of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See Full report Here: & See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' ]

Full article in new window

Change I Could Believe In

Now thats change!..T

One can advance arguments for drilling for oil in ANWR, off the continental shelf of several states, and for drilling for natural gas, mining oil shale, and developing cleaner coal technology. The basis for the arguments is simply that we already have the technology to take all those steps rather quickly and that taking those steps would allow the economy to grow, going a long way toward improving the lives of Americans, especially those lower on the economic ladder. It apparently it is only a a cliche headline to the naysayers that "the economy is bad; the poor hit hardest." Sometimes it's "women and children hit hardest." Or "African-Americans hit hardest." In any case, the truth is that policies which stifle the economy do hit hardest on the lower economic strata. Which makes one wonder why Democrats propose policies that hinder the economy, but that's another topic.

The anti-drilling arguments seem to be settling into several rather bizarre statements:

1) Even if we started exploring offshore now, it might take (7 or 10 or 25 or whatever number the naysayer wants to throw out) years to start producing the oil. To which the proper answer is THEN WE BETTER GET STARTED! YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE LESS TIME IF WE WAIT?

2) We should develop alternative energy sources. To which the proper answer is IF YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE A FEW YEARS TO GET OIL FROM THE CONTINENTAL SHELF, HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE TO DEVELOP SOURCES WE HAVEN'T EVEN INVENTED YET? BUT HEY, LET'S GET STARTED! Just don't stop drilling while we look for alternatives.

3) We should consider nuclear power. INDEED, BUT HOW LONG DO YOU WANT TO CONSIDER IT? HASN'T IT BEEN CONSIDERED ALREADY AND TRIED WITH GREAT SUCCESS? So let's stop "considering" and GET STARTED BUILDING THE PLANTS! If we find something better later, we can always stop building new nuke plants.

4) The base argument appears to be that, unless something will work immediately, we shouldn't do it. Does this strike you as logical? If that were a criterion, nothing humanity has ever done would have gotten started.

5) And then there's the TAX THE OIL COMPANIES PROFITS angle. Does it not strike people that there is already a tax on oil company profits? Does it not strike people that this is just an added oil company expense which drives up the price of gasoline and takes research and development money out of the oil companies, takes dividends out of the pockets of oil companies' investors, and is a brake on the economy and is part of the problem, not part of the solution? Does it not strike people that this has been tried before and was a disaster? Does it not strike people that government bureaucrats don't know anything wortwhile and effective to do with the money they have now? If government bureaucrats can solve a problem, they've kept it a secret for a long time.

6) And there's the Church of Global Warming fanatics, but that's a computer-model driven theory that has become less and less tenable. The whole solar system's been cranking up the thermometer a degree or two, it appears, and that's all due to the sun's output. The Earth is a part of a warming system, and we aren't the driver here. The sun's in the driver's seat. The global warming theory, along with the global cooling theory, the nuclear winter theory, and all the other catastrophic theories concocted over the past 50 years or so have been nothing but the handy theory du jour for those wishing to hinder America.

It's time to DRILL, BUILD NUCLEAR REACTORS, LEAVE THE OIL COMPANY PROFITS ALONE AS THEY KNOW MORE ABOUT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES THAN POLITICIANS, AND TELL THE ANTI-AMERICAN ECONOMY-STOMPERS TO GET TO THE BACK OF THE AUDITORIUM AND SIT DOWN!

That's change I could believe in.
Full Article

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Ben Stein's new documentary takes on the educational and scientific elites who have "ethnically cleansed" our universities and schools of all mention of the origins and meaning of life itself. Sounds like the same old Global Warming crowd to me. Opens April 18th at theaters everywhere. Here is the trailer. Watch it, and see the movie!...T

View in new window