Two theories which don't make sense: the Big Bang, and Black Holes. What's your view?

Well - last statement first - we're not going to be able to convince you you're wrong.Just by the way you've phrased this, we can see that your mind is made up - and no facts/figures/science or authority would change it.

Okay.

That's common enough among folks who feel that (their) religion is more important or crucial to the world operating ''properly'' than any other religion or than science (which they usually seem to believe is another religion... because they do not understand it)

We're not going to change your mind.

Understood.

But...

(1) Actually,neither the expansion of the universe (which is the ''Big Bang'') nor the appearance of the ''primordial atom'' ''defy known physics''.

The Big Bang (expansion of the universe) is simply the logical progression obtained by *using* known physics - and observations, and some 'tweaks' as the physics has been refined by new discoveries.

The appearance of the ''primordial atom'' (the initial singularity point of energy from whence the universe expanded in the ''Big Bang'') **is** a matter of speculation and hypothesis - but does not ''defy known physics''. It points toward pathways our physics knowledge are still progressing along, and new areas for investigation. But all science does that.

Yes, ''out of Nothing, Everything'' certainly defies Newtonian physics... and Aristotlean physics...and any such basic middle school and high school science-class physics that you have.

But then, so does Maxwellian physics and Einsteinian physics - both of which *do* open up the possibility of ''stuff'' appearing from ''nowhere''.

And the physics of Hawking (and other modern physicists) positively indicate that ''things'' come from ''nothing''.

And this *is* known physics.

(2) Black Holes going nuclear.

Well... no. You really need to either actually *study* the science you are trying to talk about, or you need to stick to the common platitudes from the Sunday School section.

When material is compressed enough, it *does* ''go nuclear'' - - actually it initiates nuclear fusion (go look up the difference between fusion and fission). This is the process happening in our Sun - - and miracle of miracle, something is still there!

In the *fusion* process, elemental atoms 'fuse' - creating higher atomic weight atoms (Hydrogen -> Helium -> and so on)

In this process *some* of the mass of the combining atoms changes back into energy (which you might call ''nothing from something''?), but *most* of the mass remains.

In the *extreme* conditions of a Black Hole, the mass continues to condense until it ''collapses'' (there really isn't a good way of describing this) - it ''collapses out of space'' - essentially dragging 'space-time' with it.

It doesn't ''go nuclear'' - at least, not in the sense of a nuclear bomb (which undergoes atomic fission, not fusion).

Again, the physics are *not* the same as Newton or Aristotle might have taught them... but Einstein and Hawking and many others *have* shown that this real, and *is* known physics.

>>Two theories which don't make sense: the Big Bang, and Black Holes. What's your view?<<

My view is that complex scientific theories often don't make sense unless you spend a lot of time studying them for yourself. A lot of science is counter-intuitive, but that's why we have scientists and not laymen doing the work.

>>Big Bang: 'out of Nothing, Everything'.<<

No, that is not what the Big Bang theory says at all. This is why it doesn't make sense: you have totally misrepresented it.

>>This defies known physics, but believers go for it while not believing in a God of some kind.<<

Ah, so your objection is a religious one? Perhaps you can explain the other side of the argument then. Why is it that a Universe MUST have a creator, according to creationsists, yet the creator is himself eternal? Or, why can one thing always have existed or have appeared from nowehere while another can't?

>>Black Holes: when you condense stuff that much, it goes nuclear, so nothing is left there.<<

Not only are you misrepresenting the theory you're making up phrases. What does 'it goes nuclear' mean?

Black holes exist. We have seen plenty of evidence for them. If you don't get the theory then that's really your own problem.

>>Convince me I'm wrong..?<<

How? You haven't correctly understood the theory in the first place. The amount of education and study it would take to explain why you are wrong is beyond the scope of a message forum such as this. The onus is on you to show where current theories fall down and present an alternative that satisfies all observations better than accepted current theory. That's how science works.

Well, I am agnostic myself, but I have never understood why people's theories of the big bang have to be mutually exclusive with the idea of a god. Maybe with a specific religion that states something contradictory, but it is just as easy to say "there was a big bang because god did it" as it is to say "there was a big bang so there is no god."

I believe the big bang theory does not state there was nothing at all, but rather that all matter in the universe started in one very, very small place (to put it quite simply.)

As to black holes, the claim is that they are gravity wells so severe that even light cannot escape it's area of effect. If you are comfortable with claiming a deity is responsible for everything, why draw the line at things science is trying to define?

You're confusing cosmology with cosmogony. The Big Bang theory isn't at all about the creation of the universe. You need to start all over.

Moreover, you've apparently only scratched the surface of nuclear physics if you really think black holes are impossible. Do you even know what that "goes nuclear" phrase means?

You have confused an origin of the universe with its expansion.

The big bang is the expansion of the universe and could not occur until after it existed.

There is no evidence for or against the universe having an infinitely long past.

----- ----- -----

Gravity changes inversely by the square of the distance - that is "known physics"

Black holes have been shown to be real and many have been found.

----- ----- -----

When a person examines things that are outside of his daily experiences, they often seem counter-intuitive and difficult to accepted as fact.

It is somewhat strange to think about animals that can hear sounds in frequencies above or below that which we can hear. The same idea applies to things that occur extremely rapidly or frequencies of light that are above or below that which we can detect with our eyes. But these things are only slight variations of what we can sense and so are only slightly peculiar.

As we learn to detect things that are of a more distant scale in power, speed or quantity, the feeling of weirdness is greatly heightened. Since these things are so bizarre compared to our day-to-day sensations, many people just refuse to accept the concepts at all or worse, return to age old explanations involving magic. The more complex the true explanation for phenomena at the far ends of scale, the more likely it is to be rejected or misconstrued by the average person.

. .

We know what happened a trillionth of a second after the explosion of the Big Bang, however it is true we don't know how it actually occurred, Steven hawking said that is why there is room for god. We did also however just discoverthe Higgs boson particle in the hadron collider in Switzerland, which proves how matter can be created, but I'm nowhere near smart enough to tell you how it works. And we have found black holes, we know they exist that's just your choice I suppose.

Hang on, hang on...

-Black Holes are not a theory; it has been proven that they exist. Black Holes are real.

-And the Big Bang is not at all how you described it. It states that the universe was created from a very dense, small, and hot state, then the space expanded in all directions and cooled to form space as we see it today. Also, fun fact; the Big Bang theory was proposed by a Christian. Georges Lemaître.

And that makes me wonder why so many Christians reject a theory proposed by one of their own.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Whether or not you think that something makes sense is inconsequential, you are merely a particularly ignorant human being. Your comprehension is irrelevant because the observable evidence make it obvious that whether you understand it or not, the CMB tells us that the Big bang occurred, and we know black holes exist because they are detectable by the gravitational lens effects that they create. Have a nice day.

How very arrogant of you.

You make up some nonsense, claim that your nonsense is what the Big Bang and black holes theories say, then declare that because you don't understand them then nobody does and hence they are wrong.

I don't get paid enough to "convince" you, and I think you are just looking for a fight. No thanks. Go and educate yourself, as with that attitude I doubt anyone else will want to bother.

Agreed. The big bang theory is essentially a creation myth devised by a belgian priest which received the support of a god-fearing american scientific community. Throughout the last century observations kept cropping up that contradicted it and more and more fantastical concepts had to be invented to keep it alive — things like expanding space, inflation and dark energy. There are a number of notable astronomers who recognise the absurdity of it. Some of them give their views in this documentary which you may find interesting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0&playnex...

That video also highlights the shameful amount of bias that exists amongst the scientific community. The professionals have to do BB-supporting research if they want to keep their jobs. So there is, of course, a lot of research supporting the big bang. It is not so much the evidence that supports the big bang but the conclusions that are drawn by scientific consensus. [see www.cosmology.info]

The truth is that the big bang theory is severely flawed and will likely be consigned to the history books within a decade or two. There is an increasing weight of evidence opposing it.

The best single contradicting observation may well be this:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/arch11/1103...

...and here is some more:

http://phys.org/news190027752.html

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/09/the-g...

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Bang_Afterglo...

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17752

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Quasar+clumps+dim+co...

http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/03/us/astronomers-n...

This page lists many deficiencies of the big bang theory:

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.as...

imo, the best alternative cosmologies are the plasma/electric universe theories:

www.plasmacosmology.net + http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/about/syn/