The law of cause and effect does not apply to the Divine, because that law is natural while the Divine is supernatural. Only a closed-minded person would rule out the supernatural. I proved the supernatural in one of my videos.
If something can't come from nothing and everything has a beginning then you have to create an excuse to explain god being eternal, which is unproven, so all you have is faith which is not based on fact.
@Bllackguard666 I guess if we don't have an answer to a question it must be god even though no evidence exists to suggest that a god exists/existed. You believe what people have told you based on 2,000 year old stories and I believe data and peer reviewed analysis. I choose to believe people that admit making mistakes and correct them...you believe people that make shit up that can't be disproven or proven because that requires critical analysis. Wow, so weak and pathetic.
@ercvstr Name calling and insults do you even less justice. So, where is your argument? Name calling? Very mature. (What is a "fucko"?). However, I do know what I am talking about. *sigh*.
P.S. I'm sure you believe in the big bang and say that the cause of the big bang is God. This is a popular pseudo-scientific stance. But think about this: What real proof is there of the big bang? Mostly, it's light. It's satellites "looking back through time" observing light that has taken billions of years to get to our telescopes. Light can be bent, refracted and gravitationally distorted so to base a theory off something like that seems a little fallacious because it's earth-centric.
I concur. God is everything, and nothing is beyond God, so we are God. God is a representation of a conscious being that is aware of itself. We were "created" in His "image" which can have an infinite amount of variety, and exist everywhere at once... that is US. We are the supreme creators of our reality. We are each an individual reflection of a tiny slice of the same being that is the experience having itself. So we can unite together and work AS ONE to create Heaven in our reality.
@9innail Sounds a bit pseudo-quatum-mechanics-ish. If you haven't seen it yet, check out What the bleep do we know...some of it's flaky and some facts are wrong, but overall still a descent film to make you think.
@exploitdbyplutocracy yes, it is based completely upon physics, or more specifically the One Theory of Everything. 4 laws: 1- You exist. 2- the One is the All, the All are the One, 3- What you put out is what you get back, 4- CHANGE is the only constant (except for the first 3 laws).
If your causality holds any water at all, then how could the universe which, as you deemed is eternal and infinite, have a cause? It's infinite and eternal. How was something "created" infinity ago? As humans, we cannot comprehend infinity so we associate everything with a cause. If you look at astronomy, you'll see cycles and patterns. They cause each other. There is no need for an initial cause if the universe is infinite and eternal.
The laws of logic break down as you get closer to the singularity that was the Big Bang. Just because you cant possibly fathom how something can occur without cause does not mean "Well god dunnit!"
This video makes assumptions. I plan on being open and not making assumptions with no evidence to support them. Also, if there were a sumpreme being, it doesn't seem likely that it cares to make itself known or to communicate directly with "its creation."
I think it's more reasonable to assume some kind of creator than not. However, that still leaves things that maybe can't be explained. Time and space belong together. So God created both time and space. Prior to that no time existed and when talking about God then terms that require time (like first... then...) don't make that much sense. I can live with that.
"LOLigic" hehe. But yeah, according to Christian theology the universe is not eternal. And I cant believe Freethink1939 would come up with something a liiiiitle more sophisticated than the old objection "if God created the universe, who created God?"
your first premise is an assertion. how do you know everything that happens has a cause? you are off the bat assuming something, because your conclusion doesn't come from you premises, you're doing it the other way around, which is calling a contrivance. Read up on Kant's explanation of time as a faculty of the mind. There's another problem with your argument. God not requiring a creator contradicts your first premise and nullifies it, utterly.
Your argument is completely false, unsound, and self-contradicting. By what standards does this constitute a proof? Its never too late for proper education. Read a book. Besides logic and science, which can benefit you greatly, you might be interested in the Kalam cosmological argument, and its complete and utter failure.
Existence is not proof of creation. If we see a ball, we can only assume that the ball is there, we cant assume how it got there. Also, science has proven that space is NOT infinite, yet we have not found out what is beyond it. According to Quantum Physics there is a theory that deep within the protons and neutrons, there COULD be a whole different universe. Ofcorse this is not proven yet, it would be very difficult to prove.
This issue is way too big for you to mess around with buster, considering the multitude of misinformation you have been churning out. A retarded cockroach can provide a better explanation than that.
Please tell me how God falls outside the spectrum of a cause. In fact, it seems like god is a pretty big cause in itself.
To say something had to cause something I agree with, but, to say that god was the first cause supersedes that fact that god is something a something had to cause it in the first place.
I'll be the first to admit that I dont know what or how everything started but to fill god in its place is 1. not helpful and 2. falsifiable.
FIRSTLY, you've misquoted Newton's 3rd law: all actions have an equal AND opposite reaction....
NEXT, religion now retreats to GOD as the catalyst for the "big bang", but what if the big bang was one of many? Say our universe will collapse upon itself in billions of years and after a time explode again? Interestingly, neither side can test either theory...
Again, Jolly man, you didn't prove shit.. We're going to use reason and science.. when is that going to happen? I didn't see any science used nor reason.. you're pathetic.
Why would I agree that space is infinite or eternal? I don't know that, damn.. We don't know if it is since we haven't seen it. You can't just make shit up sweetheart, get with the program. What created god? If every action has an equal reaction, than what created god and why is it a contradictory question? If there is a creator that creates shit than who or what created god? It's a common sense question.
Just big fat ASSUMPTIONS that have been parroted many times!
And BTW, I love that god is so often seen as a man.
Also, technically you cannot try to prove god without religion. god is a religious idea that stems from belief. And 'belief' & 'proof/evidence' do not match up. So, his whole set-up is flawed from the beginning.
In the end, religion is a myth. god/s = myth. is what they preach true? No1 Really Knows Knows With The Proof/Evidence We Have Right Now.
All you have proven is that there was a first cause. However, you have failed to prove that a god was behind the first cause. There could be a number of other things that caused the universe to exist. You jump to the conclusion of a God without evidence.
As much as I'd love to use Newton's 3rd law to disprove god, "god" is a paradox. And therefore can be neither proved NOR disproved. And sadly, as you find a disproof, there's a proof. Since actually showing such a being is impossible. But I am truly sorry to state the paradox idea for the zillionth time...
You sir. If it were not for your apparent mental disabilities I would ask you to look up "logic" in the dictionary. I might have even suggested that you take a class in logical proofs at a local college, but I digress as you would not be able to take advantage of such things because you cannot "think for yourself."
2. Why do you assume, that just because we can not yet prove what created the first aspect scientifically, that it was a higher power? You can not, just like I can not disprove that it was God - yet. Aren't you taking this by faith alone, not by evidence?
People are not created by God, God in whatever form has been created by people. That is just as resonable of an assumption as the one you made.
If you have to options either, a singularity, a single point of all matter and energy, that has no cause, or a magical super being, the most powerful, complex, intelligent being ever to exist, or ever could exist, that has no cause. Which makes the most sense?
What is easiest to believe exists with no designer, a formless point of matter, or the most perfect being that could ever exist?
It's not logic, it's stupidity, ignorance, and arrogance. You suck.
If you talk about something when there wasn't something, that something didn't exist. Wait, did I just disprove God in the same stupid way that you prove him?...damn.
Space is not infinite by the way. You have not proven God in any way. You are an ignorant retard... And I won't even bother to explain why. If you don't see why, well I can't help you.
You can not assert that everything needs a cause, and then assert that there is a "first cause". It is a contradiction. If there is a "first cause" then logically, not everything needs a cause, as the "first" cause would need a cause as well. So your real argument, when you divorce it from the sophistry, is that everything requires a cause, with one exception. You assert that that exception is God. I can just as easily counter that the exception is the universe. You are nowhere near proving God.
Umm, you really need to restate your query, but to attempt to address this: I've stated for the zillionth time "god is a paradox"; therefore can NEITHER be proved NOR disproved. Meaning: as you give a "proof", an equally effective disproof can be elicited. And oversimplifying and misquoting Newton's laws of motion isn't helping. Also, if you'd take time to study organic/ inorganic chem, you'd find that you CAN'T just slap an "intelligent design" label on everything.
It's not that simple. Time itself was created at the Big Bang, so it's like asking what is south to the South pole. As Stephen Hawking stated, the Universe might not have a beginning. It also seems finite in space and time, as research of cosmic background (CMB) radiation, the measured amount of dark matter and the estimated ratio of known energy to dark energy shows.
Asserting that a deity doesn't need a creator is special pleading, and it begs the question as to the existence of such deity.
You take causality as a premise which is possibly a fallacy the the point of the big bang. Like Stephen Hawking illustrated, the big bang may very well have no cause. Either way, positing deities as an answer doesn't help verifying or falsifying anything, as you may know.
That is a very weak out, "the big bang may very have no cause." You just can not admit that too has a cause, as that cause has one also. You fear the logical conclusion to admit so.
I fear nothing when it comes to broadening knowledge and insight. But you asked a difficult question, Freethink1939: "What caused the Big Bang?", and I gave you my answer based on what modern cosmology provides.
What I can admit is that the big bang may have a cause, such as colliding branes as posited by M theory (string theory) -- or it may have no cause because causality itself ceases to exist around such singularities.
For me, the "weak out" would be saying "God did it".
ABSOLUTELY NOT! The big bang could be antecedent to another of our universe's "big crunches" and will happen in the very far off future; just one in an infinite cycle.
And after deep contemplation, most of the "truths" in the bible are self contradictory in light of things like electronics and medical technology anywho.
And instantly dismisses other thought experiments like: what if OUR present universe's "big bang" was the result of a quiescent antecedent from a past big bang and is a part of an infinite cycle of "big bangs" that will occur? There's no way to test that either and it's equally as worth the time contemplating
But there is a way to test that, an it's on its way into orbit!
This month, ESA will launch Herschel and Planck, to observatory probes on one rocket to Earth's Laplace point #2. Planck will map tiny variations in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background; depending on the data, different pre-big-bang models could be validated or falsified, among them the crunch-bang model you've mentioned, and several brane models.
I don't know why I'm making so many typos ("to test that, *and* it's ..."; "Herschel and Planck, *two* probes..."). Too much coffee, I guess.
Within 2009, we'll have an upgraded Hubble, a (hopefully) functioning LHC and several new space probes. Hopefully we will learn something about the Higgs boson and gravity, about dark matter and dark energy, and about how the Big Bang came to be.
The law of cause and effect does not apply to the Divine, because that law is natural while the Divine is supernatural. Only a closed-minded person would rule out the supernatural. I proved the supernatural in one of my videos.
AthosAmo 1 month ago
What you don't understand is that a fist cause is IMPOSSIBLE. Here you go, educate yourself.
fatfist hubpages com/hub/CREATION-IS-IMPOSSIBLE-First-Cause-is-Impossible
fatfist 2 months ago
That was a terribly and really abstract way of telling "god"'s origin, but this is still not a proof that god exists!!! Do you know what a proof is?
fyrstikknerd 6 months ago
If something can't come from nothing and everything has a beginning then you have to create an excuse to explain god being eternal, which is unproven, so all you have is faith which is not based on fact.
MrSamuelSpade 9 months ago
@MrSamuelSpade That can be applied to your "big bang", too. Just in case you skipped that part of your "research".
Bllackguard666 6 months ago
@Bllackguard666 The big bang doesn't posit that something came from nothing dumbfuck!!!
ercvstr 6 months ago
@ercvstr Ooo...your name calling does you such justice! I might cry, now. Or go cut myself!
Seriously. If nothing was there, and your science can't prove it, what made it happen?
Bllackguard666 6 months ago
@Bllackguard666 I guess if we don't have an answer to a question it must be god even though no evidence exists to suggest that a god exists/existed. You believe what people have told you based on 2,000 year old stories and I believe data and peer reviewed analysis. I choose to believe people that admit making mistakes and correct them...you believe people that make shit up that can't be disproven or proven because that requires critical analysis. Wow, so weak and pathetic.
ercvstr 6 months ago
@Bllackguard666 You make comments and don't even know about the theories and concepts that you dismiss. Well done fucko!!!
ercvstr 6 months ago
@ercvstr Name calling and insults do you even less justice. So, where is your argument? Name calling? Very mature. (What is a "fucko"?). However, I do know what I am talking about. *sigh*.
Bllackguard666 6 months ago
P.S. I'm sure you believe in the big bang and say that the cause of the big bang is God. This is a popular pseudo-scientific stance. But think about this: What real proof is there of the big bang? Mostly, it's light. It's satellites "looking back through time" observing light that has taken billions of years to get to our telescopes. Light can be bent, refracted and gravitationally distorted so to base a theory off something like that seems a little fallacious because it's earth-centric.
exploitdbyplutocracy 1 year ago
I concur. God is everything, and nothing is beyond God, so we are God. God is a representation of a conscious being that is aware of itself. We were "created" in His "image" which can have an infinite amount of variety, and exist everywhere at once... that is US. We are the supreme creators of our reality. We are each an individual reflection of a tiny slice of the same being that is the experience having itself. So we can unite together and work AS ONE to create Heaven in our reality.
9innail 1 year ago
@9innail Sounds a bit pseudo-quatum-mechanics-ish. If you haven't seen it yet, check out What the bleep do we know...some of it's flaky and some facts are wrong, but overall still a descent film to make you think.
exploitdbyplutocracy 1 year ago
@exploitdbyplutocracy yes, it is based completely upon physics, or more specifically the One Theory of Everything. 4 laws: 1- You exist. 2- the One is the All, the All are the One, 3- What you put out is what you get back, 4- CHANGE is the only constant (except for the first 3 laws).
9innail 1 year ago
If your causality holds any water at all, then how could the universe which, as you deemed is eternal and infinite, have a cause? It's infinite and eternal. How was something "created" infinity ago? As humans, we cannot comprehend infinity so we associate everything with a cause. If you look at astronomy, you'll see cycles and patterns. They cause each other. There is no need for an initial cause if the universe is infinite and eternal.
exploitdbyplutocracy 1 year ago
Comment removed
phtmexplo 1 year ago
The laws of logic break down as you get closer to the singularity that was the Big Bang. Just because you cant possibly fathom how something can occur without cause does not mean "Well god dunnit!"
epanek 1 year ago
i believe you used Newton's law of motion to explain how the universe needs a creator. LOL
iiknowkungfoo 1 year ago
This video makes assumptions. I plan on being open and not making assumptions with no evidence to support them. Also, if there were a sumpreme being, it doesn't seem likely that it cares to make itself known or to communicate directly with "its creation."
amberview30 1 year ago
This man makes no sense at all. "See I proved that there is a god, a supreme being" because he's there!!! HAAA....what a moron.
spareaxe 1 year ago
I think it's more reasonable to assume some kind of creator than not. However, that still leaves things that maybe can't be explained. Time and space belong together. So God created both time and space. Prior to that no time existed and when talking about God then terms that require time (like first... then...) don't make that much sense. I can live with that.
TheAzdak 1 year ago
The force is strong with this one
JediKnight901 1 year ago
Man, if the universe was eternal then why would it need a creator?
His logic doesn't make sense. Its more like LOLigic.
RandomSnot 2 years ago
"LOLigic" hehe. But yeah, according to Christian theology the universe is not eternal. And I cant believe Freethink1939 would come up with something a liiiiitle more sophisticated than the old objection "if God created the universe, who created God?"
Angmarr 2 years ago
Of course there's a G-d! Only a loving, all-powerful entity would put a girls' holes so close together! Thank you, Jesus!
HolyHellPreacher 2 years ago
Than god must have step than right?
remember "time " is just a dimmension, so the beggining never has a certain time"
Youradumbassbarnes 2 years ago
im sitting here looking for some proof of god and all i get is this shit
errskin 2 years ago
I think He was a She, no an It, no... Oh, never mind.
ridelo 2 years ago
your first premise is an assertion. how do you know everything that happens has a cause? you are off the bat assuming something, because your conclusion doesn't come from you premises, you're doing it the other way around, which is calling a contrivance. Read up on Kant's explanation of time as a faculty of the mind. There's another problem with your argument. God not requiring a creator contradicts your first premise and nullifies it, utterly.
maikeru01 2 years ago
Your argument is completely false, unsound, and self-contradicting. By what standards does this constitute a proof? Its never too late for proper education. Read a book. Besides logic and science, which can benefit you greatly, you might be interested in the Kalam cosmological argument, and its complete and utter failure.
SoftwareEngineer3 2 years ago
Existence is not proof of creation. If we see a ball, we can only assume that the ball is there, we cant assume how it got there. Also, science has proven that space is NOT infinite, yet we have not found out what is beyond it. According to Quantum Physics there is a theory that deep within the protons and neutrons, there COULD be a whole different universe. Ofcorse this is not proven yet, it would be very difficult to prove.
WolfRester 2 years ago
No one can prove or disprove a god existing.
But you can prove just how much he is involved, or should i say not involved in the events in the universe.
And so far it doesnt look good on the 'god made everything' homefront.
Devilsnightforlife 2 years ago
This issue is way too big for you to mess around with buster, considering the multitude of misinformation you have been churning out. A retarded cockroach can provide a better explanation than that.
0orangepeel0 2 years ago
Please tell me how God falls outside the spectrum of a cause. In fact, it seems like god is a pretty big cause in itself.
To say something had to cause something I agree with, but, to say that god was the first cause supersedes that fact that god is something a something had to cause it in the first place.
I'll be the first to admit that I dont know what or how everything started but to fill god in its place is 1. not helpful and 2. falsifiable.
Also even if there is a god... Which one?
DrDvids 2 years ago
Freethink1939, the problem with your logic is that the word "god" can easily be replaced with "the big bang".
If god can be the creator of "the first cause", then so can the big bang.
you havent proved anything.
Skodmunk 2 years ago
yes he did as the big bang happened in a universe already made.
lamarridley2 2 years ago
FIRSTLY, you've misquoted Newton's 3rd law: all actions have an equal AND opposite reaction....
NEXT, religion now retreats to GOD as the catalyst for the "big bang", but what if the big bang was one of many? Say our universe will collapse upon itself in billions of years and after a time explode again? Interestingly, neither side can test either theory...
acquiesce022 2 years ago
Again, Jolly man, you didn't prove shit.. We're going to use reason and science.. when is that going to happen? I didn't see any science used nor reason.. you're pathetic.
afroschlan 2 years ago
Why would I agree that space is infinite or eternal? I don't know that, damn.. We don't know if it is since we haven't seen it. You can't just make shit up sweetheart, get with the program. What created god? If every action has an equal reaction, than what created god and why is it a contradictory question? If there is a creator that creates shit than who or what created god? It's a common sense question.
afroschlan 2 years ago
dork alert!
he talks like if this was new
sorry i must have said "oooh"
eurabio 2 years ago
He provided no proof/evidence.
Just big fat ASSUMPTIONS that have been parroted many times!
And BTW, I love that god is so often seen as a man.
Also, technically you cannot try to prove god without religion. god is a religious idea that stems from belief. And 'belief' & 'proof/evidence' do not match up. So, his whole set-up is flawed from the beginning.
In the end, religion is a myth. god/s = myth. is what they preach true? No1 Really Knows Knows With The Proof/Evidence We Have Right Now.
candidskeptic 2 years ago
What caused god?
caligulaincarnate 2 years ago 4
All you have proven is that there was a first cause. However, you have failed to prove that a god was behind the first cause. There could be a number of other things that caused the universe to exist. You jump to the conclusion of a God without evidence.
LucasTheAtheist 2 years ago
the correct statement is "causes an equal and OPPOSITE reaction" so this could be used to "prove" or "dsiprove" the exsistence of god
dannyboy666999 2 years ago
As much as I'd love to use Newton's 3rd law to disprove god, "god" is a paradox. And therefore can be neither proved NOR disproved. And sadly, as you find a disproof, there's a proof. Since actually showing such a being is impossible. But I am truly sorry to state the paradox idea for the zillionth time...
acquiesce022 2 years ago
You sir. If it were not for your apparent mental disabilities I would ask you to look up "logic" in the dictionary. I might have even suggested that you take a class in logical proofs at a local college, but I digress as you would not be able to take advantage of such things because you cannot "think for yourself."
jtdreisb 2 years ago
Two points I want to make:
1. Why do you assume that God is male?
2. Why do you assume, that just because we can not yet prove what created the first aspect scientifically, that it was a higher power? You can not, just like I can not disprove that it was God - yet. Aren't you taking this by faith alone, not by evidence?
People are not created by God, God in whatever form has been created by people. That is just as resonable of an assumption as the one you made.
Peace!
SolitaryPhoenixSkye 2 years ago
What caused God?
kentekent 2 years ago 2
If you have to options either, a singularity, a single point of all matter and energy, that has no cause, or a magical super being, the most powerful, complex, intelligent being ever to exist, or ever could exist, that has no cause. Which makes the most sense?
What is easiest to believe exists with no designer, a formless point of matter, or the most perfect being that could ever exist?
OktoberSunset 2 years ago
Haha, what a retard.
It's not logic, it's stupidity, ignorance, and arrogance. You suck.
If you talk about something when there wasn't something, that something didn't exist. Wait, did I just disprove God in the same stupid way that you prove him?...damn.
Space is not infinite by the way. You have not proven God in any way. You are an ignorant retard... And I won't even bother to explain why. If you don't see why, well I can't help you.
XQlusiveProductions 2 years ago
You can not assert that everything needs a cause, and then assert that there is a "first cause". It is a contradiction. If there is a "first cause" then logically, not everything needs a cause, as the "first" cause would need a cause as well. So your real argument, when you divorce it from the sophistry, is that everything requires a cause, with one exception. You assert that that exception is God. I can just as easily counter that the exception is the universe. You are nowhere near proving God.
h8uall66 2 years ago
Such a retarded argument :facepalm:
Ever heard of an infinite regress?
And FYI, space is not infinite ;) Even logically it cannot be infinite, if it had a start and IS EXPANDING?! Go read a book. Or die, who cares.
rationalargument 2 years ago
funny accent
bangNL94 2 years ago
What caused got then Einstein?
Rellizate 2 years ago
You cant say that everything must have a cause, then make up and define a God that has NO cause. It's illogical.
shanonbrogdon 2 years ago 4
I explained that in the video.
Freethink1939 2 years ago
I understand that you explained YOUR opinion on why this is, but that still do not make it fact.
Without empirical evidence, god has always been and will likely remain, mere idea made up in the minds of mankind.
shanonbrogdon 2 years ago
Umm, you really need to restate your query, but to attempt to address this: I've stated for the zillionth time "god is a paradox"; therefore can NEITHER be proved NOR disproved. Meaning: as you give a "proof", an equally effective disproof can be elicited. And oversimplifying and misquoting Newton's laws of motion isn't helping. Also, if you'd take time to study organic/ inorganic chem, you'd find that you CAN'T just slap an "intelligent design" label on everything.
acquiesce022 2 years ago
@shanonbrogdon You can't say that everything came from nothing and doesn't have a cause, then disbelief in a Creator. That's illogical
CGJUGO80 10 months ago
you sir, are a spastic.
w00dw0rm 2 years ago
Thank you.
Freethink1939 2 years ago
It's not that simple. Time itself was created at the Big Bang, so it's like asking what is south to the South pole. As Stephen Hawking stated, the Universe might not have a beginning. It also seems finite in space and time, as research of cosmic background (CMB) radiation, the measured amount of dark matter and the estimated ratio of known energy to dark energy shows.
Asserting that a deity doesn't need a creator is special pleading, and it begs the question as to the existence of such deity.
leporidus 2 years ago
What caused the Big Bang?
Freethink1939 2 years ago
You take causality as a premise which is possibly a fallacy the the point of the big bang. Like Stephen Hawking illustrated, the big bang may very well have no cause. Either way, positing deities as an answer doesn't help verifying or falsifying anything, as you may know.
leporidus 2 years ago
That is a very weak out, "the big bang may very have no cause." You just can not admit that too has a cause, as that cause has one also. You fear the logical conclusion to admit so.
Freethink1939 2 years ago
I fear nothing when it comes to broadening knowledge and insight. But you asked a difficult question, Freethink1939: "What caused the Big Bang?", and I gave you my answer based on what modern cosmology provides.
What I can admit is that the big bang may have a cause, such as colliding branes as posited by M theory (string theory) -- or it may have no cause because causality itself ceases to exist around such singularities.
For me, the "weak out" would be saying "God did it".
leporidus 2 years ago
ABSOLUTELY NOT! The big bang could be antecedent to another of our universe's "big crunches" and will happen in the very far off future; just one in an infinite cycle.
And after deep contemplation, most of the "truths" in the bible are self contradictory in light of things like electronics and medical technology anywho.
acquiesce022 2 years ago
And instantly dismisses other thought experiments like: what if OUR present universe's "big bang" was the result of a quiescent antecedent from a past big bang and is a part of an infinite cycle of "big bangs" that will occur? There's no way to test that either and it's equally as worth the time contemplating
acquiesce022 2 years ago
But there is a way to test that, an it's on its way into orbit!
This month, ESA will launch Herschel and Planck, to observatory probes on one rocket to Earth's Laplace point #2. Planck will map tiny variations in the temperature of the cosmic microwave background; depending on the data, different pre-big-bang models could be validated or falsified, among them the crunch-bang model you've mentioned, and several brane models.
Exciting times!
leporidus 2 years ago
I don't know why I'm making so many typos ("to test that, *and* it's ..."; "Herschel and Planck, *two* probes..."). Too much coffee, I guess.
Within 2009, we'll have an upgraded Hubble, a (hopefully) functioning LHC and several new space probes. Hopefully we will learn something about the Higgs boson and gravity, about dark matter and dark energy, and about how the Big Bang came to be.
leporidus 2 years ago
COOL!
g0dsboy 2 years ago