What was going one ONE SECOND before the Big Bang ... ?

I heartily recommend Eric J. Lerner's book, "The Big Bang Never Happened."

And since that book came out, they've found some issues with the whole interpretation of the red-shifting of stellar light which, up till now, has been the main "evidence" of universal expansion, which, in turn, seemed to indicate that all matter in the universe had a common point of origin.

There are serious holes in the Big Bang Theory, and scientists have been putting patches on it for decades. It's time to look at some other alternatives.

there are holes in every theory and suggestion...I think the best answer is "we don't know"

Well it was the fourth of July and this kid had just lit the fuse on the bbiiiiggg fire-cracker.

Hey, can't be that much different than some of the other theories floating around.

I'm not sure but I hope it was something like Slim Pickens from Dr. Stangelove..........

Now THAT's more like it ... wonder if y' could hear the yell before the bang ... ?

Soooooooo ... after time, space, matter, 'dark matter', etc etc all finished collapsing in on itself (bear with me, I don't really believe in the 'bang' myself), how much 'time' elapsed before 'inflation' (or 're-inflation') happened ... ? While we're at it, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ... ?

There is no claim as per the Big Bang theory that there had been a collapsing of a universe into itself.

One second before the big bang, someone read the sign above the button that said "Do not touch." Actually, they said "Oops..."

I was having this really primo dream concerning a winning lotto ticket, a younger version of Nicole Kidman and my boss getting drafted but then BANG!!!


It happens every time...

This is no One One second before time ... impossible concept.

before the big bang there was no time

Hypothetically speaking, you mean ...

I say that wux and thorb are right. Time started with the BB, to ask about a 'before' simply doesn't make sense.

The idea of contraction and re-inflation is not necessary nor integral to BB theory.

Well, that would be true IF there had been - or hadn't been - a 'Big Bang' ... I like Hawking's idea that there was no need either for a 'Big Bang' or a 'god' to bring about the 'universe'. Why are people so resistant to the thought that chemistry and physics alone can accomplish a great deal without 'divine intervention' ... ?

But I digest ... if there HAD been a 'BB', then there would logically have to exist the briefest, even infinitesimally short, period of time between when 'contraction' ended and 'inflation' began ... 'instantaneous' doesn't exist.

Yes, I didn't mean to say that the BB theory must be true...I meant to say 'according to the BB theory'...




I assume you are talking about the theory that the universe keeps falling back in on itself, repeating a BB over and over again. What i'm trying to say is that some people believe in the BB theory while not believing in the contraction theory. They say there has been only one BB, and no contraction before it.

True enough ... IF there had been a 'BB', the seemingly-prevalent opinion is that it's a repetitive cycle that repeats ad infinitum ad nauseam ... Personally, I'm equally as receptive to the 'multiverse' concept and / or 'branes' ... I just find it an interesting 'what if?' when it comes to that hypothetical about the time when 'contraction' ends and 'inflation' begins. If that were a reality - and there's no proof either way - then there would have to be that ever-so-small period of time that separates the one from the other ... until the first ends, the second can't begin ...