File
135221065037.jpg
- (103.94KB
, 500x359
, era1-nowmap.jpg
)
Hi /sci/, I have a question,
I've been thinking about certain things a lot lately, and something that's been bothering me immensely is that the Big Bang Theory (the theory, not the fucking show) is so widely accepted and taken for granted, without there being any actual proof except for blue-redshift values.
What I'm trying to say here is, well, the Big Bang is an event, right? And any event is defined by a time, and location (4 dimensions, if you want me to be exact). Since it is so widely believed that the Big Bang also was the beginning of those 4 dimensions, how can you hope to define it as an event? And if it isn't an event, did it even happen?
Just to elaborate a bit; let us say that there were coordinates of the big bang. These would surely be time = 0 and the spatial xyz's also = 0.
Now, here's the problem. This indicates that these coordinates already existed before the Big Bang (thus nullifying the theory) or, more plausible, being created at the exact same moment as the BB. This would indicate that they were not created BY the BB, but rather simultaneously. Which would then render the BB redundant in any other aspect that origin of mass.
I've done my fair share of reading on multiple aspects of it (planck epoch etc), and can't seem to come to a conclusion. So what does /sci/ think?
39
posts
omitted. Click Reply to view.