Science & Technology

Big Bang - The greatest fairy tale ever told

Hans Jelbring
Tallbloke Talkshop
Tue, 18 Mar 2014 13:26 UTC

There is freedom of choosing religion in our country so there is no problem what you or I believe. On the other hand there is a problem when scientists mix facts supported by evidence and laws of nature with fantasy, unfounded hypotheses and faith.

There is no qualitative difference being a creationist believing that earth and our galaxy was created 6000 years ago or believing that the universe was created from a small cosmic egg 14 billion years ago. From where did this egg originate and what existed before that?

There must have been something more (or rather, less) than a nuclear bomb within it since at that point not even matter are believed to has existed. None of these beliefs are or can be supported by scientific methods or verified experience. Hence, it cannot be classified as science.

Many years ago a saw a "scientific" 600 page book in a book store. It claimed to tell what happened in the first MINUTE after Big Bang. It was loaded with formulae and unverified hypotheses. To me this book represented a peak of human hubris, a pretention that logic and mathematical models without any verified anchoring in reality could give the answer to the eternal mystery of our existence. Evidently the author was religious or crazy.

This is still my opinion. Science can hardly explain every problem that nature presents using scientific methods. Some parts of physical reality are just too complex to untangle, at least at our contemporary level of scientific understanding and knowledge. And so, any such statement is by definition unscientific. The concept of Big Bang and the following process would be called a fairy tale or superstition during the old days.

Today measurements of micro wave radiation from space are stated to tell what happened during the first SECOND after Big Bang. What a joke! What about measurements of other types of electromagnetic radiation that come from space such as, radio waves, visible light, X-rays and gamma rays which often present great problems to interpret?

You could as well state that the universe was created by Mickey Mouse and suggest he should get a Noble prize for his great feat.

Hans Jelbring

Reader Comments

davidcarswell · 2014-03-18T15:50:31Z

Hmmmm....

While I don't necessarily believe the Big Bang theory to be the final word, I do understand science. I am studying astrophysics presently and have a feeling that electric/plasma universe models could be incorporated into the standard model should cooler heads allow. However the author of this diatribe is merely an expression of someone whom doesn't understand the rather compelling evidence and the science behind the conclusions we have drawn. They may need refining, may be wrong or may be right but just due to lack of understanding does not refute today's science in totality.

FunCoTech · 2014-03-19T23:13:04Z

I see, so Once Upon A Time there was nothing, then it exploded...
Right, gotcha, and that's called "science"?

NugaBurd · 2014-03-19T05:28:52Z

Speaking of fairy tales...

The Big Bang is the Virgin Birth of the universe!

nedlud · 2014-03-19T06:32:11Z

bedrock

Science is not religion (or a fairy tale, either).

Science is not like religion (or a fairy tale, either).

Science is better than religion (or a fairy tale, either).

Science (and technology) is the bedrock of human existence.

And it has been since the 1950's or so.

Yubba dubba do.

signed,
Stephen Hawking,

nedlud · 2014-03-19T06:54:24Z

parallel but equal gods

Mr. Hawking is absolutely correct, though he miscalculated on the date, slightly

Before television, there was nothing.

Not even science.

After television and the internet, again there will be nothing.

signed,
Fred, Barney, Wilma, Betty, Pebbles, Bam-Bam and Dino the dinosaur (or he could have been a dog, in a parallel but equally scientific world...we all could have been....use your scientific imagination...then get it confirmed by experts, or it will risk being a religion....)

System · 2014-03-19T12:23:25Z

We need better science education

I agree with David, this person lacks basic understanding. I am an amateur astronomer and have studied various cosmological theories all my life. There is indeed a great deal of compelling evidence for the Big Bang model, and much of it is not that difficult to grasp. I suggest Mr. Jelbring read "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence M. Krauss. Basically the conclusion is that "nothing" is an unstable state. "Nothing" is literally forced to bring forth "Something..." and this also means our definition of "nothing" has been incorrect.

While this is a very open minded website, I am surprised SOTT ran this editorial. It does not reflect SOTT's normal high standards.

Jean Michel · 2014-03-19T13:28:16Z

I would agree on the standards but the rest of your, and others, comment leaves me bewildered.

This so called evidence that supports the Big Bang, honestly I haven't made up my mind either way, also comes from the same sources that want us to believe it.

Question the source is something that I always keep at the front of my consciousness and never more so than when discussing scientific theories.

The main problem I have with most scientific theories is that they express, either directly or indirectly, the concept that science can answer all the questions of the Universe.

The Universe is not a purely physical and mechanical thing. There are many unseen forces at work that science either ignores or places into the "dark realm" of metaphysics.

We exist in a dual natured, polar Universe. This is plainly evident to anyone with brain one. Light and dark, male and female, positive and negative.

Just that fact alone, which cannot be denied or argued by anyone, proves that there is an opposite and equally relevant flip side to science. Science alone cannot answer the questions of the Universe and so all scientific theories that do not at least allow for the possibility of spiritual influences should be accepted as only partially solving or answering those questions.

I do not discredit science completely, to do so would be to fall into the same trap of exclusionism.

But I do feel that the spirit is just as relevant and important as science.

My vision of a perfect existence within the sphere of influence in which we exist is the seamless marriage of opposites. We need to focus on reconciling these polar extremes into a coherent dogma. Only then will we had the proper framework from which to actually begin to unravel the secrets of existence.

DownunderET · 2014-03-19T16:21:53Z

WHEN ARE???

the lies going to stop. Scientists haven't a clue about the universe or anything else for that matter. The Egyptians knew a hell of a lot more about the universe than our quackademic graduates of main stream education.

Remember the story about a black and white bear that lived in the hills in China, well the quackademics said that it was only a myth, eh 60 years later, and whamo the Panda.

Read Dr. Rupert Sheldrake' book "The Science Delusion", just look at the title, and by the way he has a Phd in biology from Oxford, game over.

Rocker · 2014-03-19T17:40:42Z

Bamboozled!!

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” – Carl Sagan

System · 2014-03-19T18:34:08Z

Presentation is key

I fully agree with you, Jean, science cannot answer all questions. That should be taken as a maxim. But if Mr. Jelbring wants to be taken seriously by serious thinkers, IMHO he needs to present his argument with less heat and more fact. For example, the Hubble redshift is considered to be a very important piece of evidence that the universe is expanding. He needs to present a plausible alternative explanation for this, and several other key pieces of observational evidence, instead of just dismissing the life's work of these (often spiritual) astronomers and astrophysicists as "Mickey Mouse."

rbateman · 2014-03-19T23:47:05Z

The missing link in the Big Bang

The debate over how the thing got started (Big Bang of gazillions of quadrillion tons) is still unsolved, and we might figure it out (whether it happened or not, what caused it or not).

The problem boils down to this: For a least the 1st second (if my memory is correct) after the Big Bang, the laws of physics either did not exist or cancelled each other out. Math only takes it so far. Until somebody comes up with a provable "how" it banged, it's still a theory, though a nearly complete one. Gravity is still an enigma.

That also brings up the question of an expanding/contracting Universe, which is another hot debate that has been raging for at least 100 years. And that expanding/contracting Universe question seems to go back and forth, new evidence throwing it one way, then the opposite.

And if that isn't enough, toss in a 3rd type of Universe which expands until it runs out of steam (har), then contracts down to a point where it can contract nor further, and blasts outwards again.

All that I can live with, as far as scientific theory goes.
But when persons or organizations toss in "The hand of God", it's like throwing ones hands up in the air, scientifically.
You cannot mix belief systems with science, and not have a face full of scientific mud. The "Hand of God" may be the case, but it's not a provable one. Because if it is, it's not for us to know or search out.