If an object at rest, stays at rest, then how was the big bang possible?

Keep in mind that the cycle theory of the universe epanding, and then contracting, is pretty much obsolete, though even if that were the case it would violate the law of perpetual motion. What was the acting force that caused the big bang?If an object at rest, stays at rest, then how was the big bang possible?
That is the one gigantic question that nobody know the answer to. There is a theory that there are many universes - and our big bang was caused when 2 of these other universes bumped into each other.


You are correct about the perpetual motion laws being violated. It is now believed that the universe, or universes, begin with a big bang and end in a big freeze, whereas the universe is expanding and cooling and it does so forever, ending with the temperature at absolute zero at time = infinity. (At time = zero the universe was 'as hot as anything ever was'.)If an object at rest, stays at rest, then how was the big bang possible?
Hmm. I'm wondering if the state of ';rest'; ever exists except for really tired scientists. Rest is an experiential phenomenon of feeling more than anything. I believe Newton was explaining motion of objects, but we know that even when we sit still, our hearts beat, synapses fire in our brains, and our hair and nails grows. So what exactly is rest? Seems in this universe, there is potential energy within even the most inert looking matter.


I must, for personal theological reasons, believe that even if there were a ';Big Bang';, some form of the universe must have preceded it.


Also, as humans, we like to believe there is an absolute beginning and an absolute end to everything.


Birth-Death, etc.


And as opposed as religions can be to scientific curiosity,


some may never leave the bubble of fixed-finite belief in absolutes. These fixed objects never stay that way. Remember the stars were perceived as the most constant things in the sky for thousands of years. Now we know they move a lot.





We must always allow for the invariably confounding existence of the infinite and that we're always in motion, never at rest. (God Laughs)


So enjoy that cup of coffee,


the answer is a paradox of flawed human perception.
To address the acting force that caused the big bang, I would have to ask you to address what force created the matter that was acted upon by the force that was subsequently conceptualized as the ';big bang';.
perhaps something was not at rest - i also do not believe in it
a universe filled with antiparticles crashes into a universe packed with particles, this combines the two universes and expands because antiparticles and particles destroy each other at contact, but enough particles were left over, which is the stars and planets and anything mande of elements that you see. ---- The End ----
First, the Big Bang theory is crap. Second (addressing your question), if nothing else existed besides the single mass, then it isn't possible to say with any certainty that mass was at rest. In order to show movement there needs to be at least two objects to compare each other to.
Heat.
......my brain hurts.....too many big words.....too much thinking.....
Remember that Newton came up with his Laws of Motion 300 years before Relativity was a glimmer in Einstein's eye. Don't compare the two like they're on equal footing.





The expansion (or contraction) of spacetime on a universal scale is a far more powerful force than Newton's elementary classical laws of motion. With current technology we can't speculate about what ';caused'; the big bang, since we would need to make observations outside of our spacetime, which is not possible.





My god, why are people answering when they have no clue whatsoever?
the object at rest stuff is Newtonian physics. All went by the wayside with Einstein's discovery of the exchangeability of matter and energy.
I don't believe in the big bang theory. I'm sorry
Zero point energy
it probably never happened like that

beauty treatments

car oil