Gonna keep this short. Science says that matter and energy are never created or destroyed only transferred. In the mainstream scientific world, the Big Bang Theory is now considered more fact than theory. So if the universe was created by the big bang, where did the compacted universe come from? Like science said matter and energy are never created, but something had to have created the compacted universe since matter doesn't appear from thin air according to scientific law. Basically a total contradiction. Please post comments, questions, or thoughts.

Scientists freely admit their limitations. The Standard Model is so popular because its equations can accurately predict almost all physical phenomena- it's hard to argue with that. But these equations break down as you approach singularities such as black holes or the Big Bang. The numbers all start converging on infinity and the math becomes unworkable. This is not a contradiction, but an inherent limitation in the model.

Here are a couple possible explanations. One is that at history's midpoint, the universe's expansion halts and a contraction begins. Eventually the whole thing re-collapses into a singularity, but immediately rebounds, beginning the process again. This could keep going on like a trillion year heartbeat ad infinitum, without the need to create energy.

Another possibility is that the energy was transferred from a neighboring universe, possibly as a result of a high-energy collision. Google "braneworld" if you are curious about this model.

The reality is that we aren't capable of looking into a singularity and getting answers. But there doesn't necessarily need to be any contradiction.

The universe has a net energy density of zero, thus the many plausible, natural scenarios in which it came into being from "nothing" does not contradict the first law of thermodynamics (the conservation of energy). In short, within our best models the origin of our universe do not violate anything, thus there need not be any contradictions =)

I can extrapolate on this a bit further if you wish later.

Maybe... still a hypothesis.

Anyways, as Guyomech and Citta said, there isn't necessarily a contradiction between the conservation of energy and the big bang theory. In this sense, one approach I really liked was made by Ilya Prigogine, one of the greatest names in the study of thermodynamics. I cannot copy from his book "The End of Certainty" right now, but I found a handy quote about his suggestions.

To answer your question with my own weird little answer: because no one really knows anything. As cryptic as that may be, that's my opinion on it. Science should know better when trying to establish a conclusion, without factoring in all the variables. The probability that we'll never get just the right explanation is much greater than the one that we will find it, considering what we know and taking into account that we're still missing big parts of it.

We know what we know so far, but knowing a lot does not mean that's how it is. The proof is that our current knowledge doesn't quite work in some parts of the universe, so there's that.

I personally don't understand why it couldn't have "just been here forever". Maybe the Universe is inflating and deflating continuously, why isn't that a possibility? It's a weird enough universe, what's one more thing?

Science was always about theory. About thinking of models of our universe which may or may not have results and proofs in experiments or observations.

So as I see it there is nothing to contradict.Theories come theories go(fuck Bill O'reilly) and it will stay this way until there is no Unknown factor.

Simple as that no need to go into complex theories.

However as Religion the aim is blurred by humans.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5dSyT50Cs8

Was it the egg, or the chicken?

the chicken

Neither, it was the Dinosaur

mainstream science... as opposed to what, underground science?
have you conducted any amateur experiments which creates something from nothing lately?

learn to distinguish laws from theories.

fringe science, obviously.

science is science, else, pseudo.
you apply the method to show evidence, or reject the alternate hypothesis.

it's as simple as that.

most evidence in science supports theories, "facts" aren't part of scientific terminology.
there are hypotheses, theories, and laws.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

relevant and really interesting, worth the time

When I say mainstream I mean what is generally accepted by the scientific community and what is taught in schools. Hell the FDA doesn't consider any type of supplement to have any medical use(this is just an example). I was simply giving an opinion about a thought that had been on my mind. There are creationism scientists who have their own theories but are usually considered to be crackpot scientists by the "mainstream" scientific community. This post was my opinion of how I feel science basics that everyone is taught and generally accepted contradicts itself. I wasn't throwing out an absolute.

I hear ya just fine, benzyme. But scientists, just like me and you, are losing their head in this game in which they're trying to find a GLOBAL law for everything (the answer to everything). That's the end purpose, wouldn't you say? Now, for a simple dude like me, that doesn't seem to be the way the universe works at all. I might be oh so wrong, but I'd rather spend the time that I have working towards things that will matter of factly help me in my day to day life. So who cares where we came from? If some alien race manufactured us, then what? Then everything can evolve, because "now we're ready"?

What we humans are absolutely great at is discovering how stuff works relative to one another. That's about our biggest progress. I understood a lot of those concepts simply by understanding my own human nature and the way that I work in day to day life. It's cool stuff, but it doesn't take millennia. And I find most of it pointless in the end. Like time. Sure, that's a great thing, but it doesn't really do anything. I'd be just as happy without having to measure time, but it wouldn't be that easy for the employers to call they're employees to work without it.

The questions "where did we come from" or "who am I" simply stem from the need of the human being to "escape" this, believing there's some sort of escape from it. Bad luck, we ain't got any of that, speaking strictly about what we can relate. Maybe death is an option, but since no one ever lived to talk about it, it'd be pretty hard to say what goes where. The attempt to understand something of which you're missing half is never going to render the result of understanding everything, though.

What are you talking about? Why is it pointless to try to answer deep and old questions about the origins of life, the origins of the universe, where we came from, where we are going? Asking these questions is by no means an attempt or need to "escape" anything, it's looking reality in the face and having the guts to search for the truth. What the hell are you talking about, anyway? Escaping what?

Furthermore, scientific breakthroughs often lead to technological advances that greatly affects our lives. Many difficult questions have been asked throughout history, and some of these have been answered through science which have later led to applications. This is important. Knowledge is important. Not saying absolutely that figuring out how the universe began will produce new technology, it might not, but it might just as well do so in the process. We've seen examples of this before, for instance the first proposal of the World Wide Web originated in the particle experiments at CERN. The internet started there.

Anyway, people care about different things. You might not care to illuminate this mystery through science, but others do care. Just because you find something meaningless doesn't mean that others must also

"In a world dominated by chaos, the scientist chooses to rather look outside in the universe than inside his own heart."

Science is always right, and everything's just a mechanical construct. Perfect view to embrace. If you can believe that.

Beliefs are irrelevant in this sense. To say "science is always right" (or always wrong) is to misunderstand it is a method. Right or wrong is a human subjective judgement. It's not up to science to be right or wrong, it's a specialized way of deriving a certain kind of knowledge, and it's damn reliable at it. After you get your information, you decide what to do with it.

Science isn't about existential questioning (for example science has no say whether everything we see is a part of a consistent illusion/matrix/virtual reality or not), but science is a method for finding the patterns inside this universe/illusion/virtual reality. Show me another way that is as or more reliable in finding these patterns and overcoming subjective bias (and open to falsifying the old more established theories)... I really doubt you can

I just wanted to add one thing that I've been thinking a lot about with regards to science. I feel that science actually has already discovered most if not all of what they need to know to piece together the whole puzzle, but the conclusion that will be drawn is so outside rational experience that it will be one heck of a hard leap to make.

The main problem as I see it is that scientists still very fervently seek an objective understanding of the universe. The problem is most experiments these days are seeming to point out that this isn't the case, as famous nobel laureate winner Eugene Wigner said "It was not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness... it will remain remarkable, in whatever way our future concepts may develop, that the very study of the external world led to the conclusion that the content of the consciousness is an ultimate reality."

I believe science (and please keep in mind by 'science' I mean the whole materialist, matter-is-primary paradigm not the process of doing testing through observation itself) has backed itself into a corner just like Christianity did several decades ago when proof came out the Earth was older than 7000 years old. To this day fundamentalist sects still believe this to be the case, and decry the devil science for trying to convince the faithful that it could be otherwise. Same shit, different paradigm. Science decrys all these pseudo-scientific people who claim that conciousness is a primary substance even when the evidence DOES seem to point that this might be the case. All this is, imo, is the priest class of today refusing to give up their cherished golden calf.

That, imo, is why science contradicts itself. Many scientists are sort of hopping on board with at least testing the notion that conciousness is key, one such prominent physicist is Tom Campbell who has a book out called 'My Big TOE' (TOE for Theory of Everything). Whether Tom and others like Peter Russell and John Hagelin are right in their conclusions isn't the point; the point is when presented with new evidence these scientists are taking the conclusions seriously instead of just sweeping them under the rug like they don't matter. The incompatibility of quantum mechanics and astrophysics means we have seriously left out something incredibly important, and so long as mainstream science continues to just 'believe' in the same old objective interpretation of reality, no matter how much new evidence may point to the contrary, they will continue to contradict themselves.