What came before the universe ?

[peterhuang913]

The bible is the best selling book in the world. I won't turn this into a religious discussion, but that is my explanation for what was before the universe.

And, yes, I do believe it myself.

You have the right to believe in whatever you want, and I won't trespass on that.

 

[Apokalipse]

The bible is the best selling book in the world. I won't turn this into a religious discussion, but that is my explanation for what was before the universe.

And, yes, I do believe it myself.

popular ≠ true.
However, I'm not going to try convincing you that you're wrong. I just hope your reason(s) for believing do not include "because so many other people believe in it"

 

[Trotter]

I just hope your reason(s) for believing do not include "because so many other people believe in it"

Nope. My basis is completely outside that fact. But thanks for thinking about me.

 

[Merkwürdigeliebe]

The big bang wasn't an explosion. An explosion is a chemical reaction.

The big bang was a rapid expansion of space-time, and for a while, there were only quantum particles. It was way too hot for atoms to exist stably until some time after the big bang occured.

The English language is quite flexible my friend. You can use the word 'explosion' to describe a quick expansion of almost anything. It does not have to involve a chemical reaction... "An explosion of rage" comes to mind as an example.

 

[Apokalipse]

The English language is quite flexible my friend. You can use the word 'explosion' to describe a quick expansion of almost anything.

Yes, you can use it in other contexts..... as a metaphor.
But when people refer to the big bang, they're probably not speaking metaphorically.

It does not have to involve a chemical reaction...

unless you are using the literal definition, and not as a metaphor.

"An explosion of rage" comes to mind as an example.

Which is metaphorical.

And by the way, it's occurred, with two 'R's, if you'd like to be that picky about words

It's not about the spelling. It's about the definition.
And definitions can be very important.

The reason I picked out the word 'explosion', is because it can create a misconception about the big bang.

 

[peterhuang913]

The English language is quite flexible my friend. You can use the word 'explosion' to describe a quick expansion of almost anything. It does not have to involve a chemical reaction... "An explosion of rage" comes to mind as an example.

Really, because when I read this, I thought of an "explosion of flavors."

 

[Merkwürdigeliebe]

Alright, I bow down to you for I am a fool.

But I'm not trying to be a smart*** here, but it's very commonly referred to as the "Big Bang" and bangs are quite generally associated with explosions, and are usually also associated with a very loud sound, a "bang" sound, if you will, which I'm sure the actual expansion of space and time did not produce. Now, whether or not you'd like to use metaphorical terms to describe a scientific event is up to you. Quite frankly, seeing that we are in an Internet forum and not some scientific conference, it's perfectly appropriate to use the word explosion. IMO. I don't feel a need to be corrected because I was not implying that there was any sort of traditional, oxygen-based combustion. Visually, most people will try and associate the Bing Bang with an explosion, because it's probably pretty appropriate to do so, because it is in fact an explosion. I understand your point that, in strict scientific terms, an explosion involves the reaction of chemical elements which were not present during the Big Bang. But most people will just be satisfied with the idea of an explosion, because anybody smart enough to realize what an explosion really is will be smart enough to figure out what the Big Bang really consisted of.

Anyway, I'm glad we had this talk, now I can rid my mind of this discussion and contemplate much more important things like when I will be clipping my toenails.

 

[peterhuang913]

Alright, I bow down to you for I am a fool.

But I'm not trying to be a smart*** here, but it's very commonly referred to as the "Big Bang" and bangs are quite generally associated with explosions, and are usually also associated with a very loud sound, a "bang" sound, if you will, which I'm sure the actual expansion of space and time did not produce. Now, whether or not you'd like to use metaphorical terms to describe a scientific event is up to you. Quite frankly, seeing that we are in an Internet forum and not some scientific conference, it's perfectly appropriate to use the word explosion. IMO. I don't feel a need to be corrected because I was not implying that there was any sort of traditional, oxygen-based combustion. Visually, most people will try and associate the Bing Bang with an explosion, because it's probably pretty appropriate to do so, because it is in fact an explosion. I understand your point that, in strict scientific terms, an explosion involves the reaction of chemical elements which were not present during the Big Bang. But most people will just be satisfied with the idea of an explosion, because anybody smart enough to realize what an explosion really is will be smart enough to figure out what the Big Bang really consisted of.

Anyway, I'm glad we had this talk, now I can rid my mind of this discussion and contemplate much more important things like when I will be clipping my toenails.

Nice write.

 

[Apokalipse]

Visually, most people will try and associate the Bing Bang with an explosion, because it's probably pretty appropriate to do so, because it is in fact an explosion.

But, it's not.

 

[Ste]

Oh, Apokalipse, you kill me with your insistence sometimes... Lol..