I’d hate to see this thread relegated to GD, where it would be more vulnerable to all sorts of input that the OP obviously isn’t interested in. Perhaps if it were phrased “Describe the current scientific theories regarding the origins of the Big Bang”?
I don’t think this is an unexplorable question. Humans have proven amazingly agile when it comes to devising indirect means of testing hypotheses which were previously thought untestable.
Take a look at the current investigations into the recently discovered phenomenon of universal acceleration. It was long assumed that universal expansion must be slowing, as gravity impedes the expansion begun at the Big Bang. But turns out, it’s speeding up!
Reeder:
Far be it for me to be a barrier to the exploration of the topic of negative energy, but on the odd chance your OP has anything to do with red shift and quasars, you might find some interesting content here.
Admittedly, the Big Bang is funky, but some of this stuff is readily debunkable.
It is possible to discuss cause and effect absent our own universe’s spacetime. One caveat we have to use, I think, is not to get too caught up in the English. Unless we’re going to start communicating via formulas (which I, for one, can’t do) we necessarily end up using metaphors.
Which stuff? (Serious question – not sure what you’re refering to, this thread or cite)
The cited thread. Specifically, the nature of a recent study that avers a quasar in Chandra, in a galaxy a measly 300 million light years away. Good reading in that thread.
But now that you mention it this thread is starting to slip a little into twilight. I’ll get back to you after we hit GD. 
It’s my understanding that the “stuff” was always there; it was just squeezed down into a tiny point of infinitessimal size and infinite density. The question that occurs to me is: “What makes you think the ‘stuff’ was ever not there?”
As I and Chronos have said in that thread, Burbridge’s paper is dubious. His analysis of the data is weak, to put it mildly, and the number of coincidental line ups they find are probably statistically insignificant.
As for the Big Bang, it is universally accepted, but the details need to be worked out. As others have said, things like the cosmic microwave background provide us with very good evidence that yes, there was a time when the universe was stupidly small, such that the light crossing time was less than the (then) age of the universe. This is why the CMB does look uniform on large scales – because information had time to travel.
QUOTE=The Cat]
Special relativity is a THEORY, it does not hold true in all cases.
[/QUOTE]
Care to expand on that? In the case where there is no appreciable acceleration, and appreciable gravitational fields are not involved, i.e. the specific conditions under which Einstein derived special relativity, special relativity does in fact work very well. In the more general cases, where we have gravity and acceleration, its mathematically heavier counterpart, general relativity, does in fact work very well as well. I really think you’re mixing up technical and non-technical definitions of the word “theory”.
Others have picked up on this; I’ll go one further… I’ve only ever seen the construct ‘it’s just a THEORY, you can’t prove it’ used as a dishonest (or just plain misinformed) weaselling tactic by creationists, most commonly of the Young-Earth variety.
Maybe that isn’t the case here, but it’ll be the first time.
A past thread and a present one which might be useful here.
Summary: There has never been nothing, and so there was no nothing-to-something transition or “creation”.
‘Nothing’ can’t ‘be’, it can only ‘not be’
<< D&R >>
OK, there has always been something. 
The problem with finding out where “stufff” might have “come from” is that even if you could somehow put it into words, you are still left wondering how the “place” that the stuff came from got there, and then where “it” – the place or whatever – came from.
Whether you are an atheist or a staunch believer in a god/creator, using basic notions of ‘stuff’, ‘beginnings’ and ‘ends’, you eventually have to conclude that something was always there, or it popped out of ‘nowhere’.
And using these terms that relate to space, time and our dimensions becomes even more futile.
To break it down: SOMETHING was always somewhere or SOMETHING popped out of nowhere.
The requisite comment that ALL of our physical theories break down when you go back in time sufficiently close to the BB. Current belief is that those theories will no longer be accurate when you are within one Planck time (about 10^-43 seconds, IIRC) of the BB. Before this time, NO ONE KNOWS what happened. There are some speculations based on, for example, string theory, but string theory has not yet been established as a correct theory. (And anyway there are a lot of different opinions on what string theory says about the universe at times earlier than the Planck time.)
Special relativity is indeed a theory, a theory that has been show to be true. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the scientific definition of “theory.” You might be confusing it with “hypothesis.”
Special relativity is defined within the context of inertial reference frames, with the knowledge that gravitational fields induce non-inertial reference frames. This does not makes the theory any less true.
Of course. Stephen Hawking, and many other big name scientists, have in fact questioned the validity of the Big Bang theory. That’s part of what makes them scientists. But when they have questioned it, the answer they have consistently gotten is “yes”. And that’s what makes the Big Bang model a theory. A theory, in scientific parlance, is a model which has been tested many times, and which has passed all of its tests. There is no higher level to which a scientific idea can be elevated.
As for Special Relativity, it’s been more thoroughly tested, to greater precision, than any other scientific idea in history, and in every case, it’s succeeded with flying colors. This is not to say that it’s absolutely proven: It’s conceivable that there is, in fact, some circumstance under which Special Relativity would be incorrect, but if so, we’ve never found it.
Big Bang implies expanding universe. Expanding into what ?
The future.
Boy, five minutes of cosmology talk makes you start sounding like a buddhist monk!
I probably shouldn’t nitpick the resident physicist on these things but what the hell…I’m bored. 
I thought Quantum Mechanics (QM) has actually been more throroughly tested than Special Relativity (SR). That is not to say that SR hasn’t been tested ad nauseum and passed over and over with flying colors…just that QM edges it out in that department.
As for conditions where SR fails I thought anything at extremely small scales causes it to fall on its face. Indeed, I thought the current Holy Grail of physics is to get QM and SR integrated. Each one works spectacularly on its own turf but fail miserably going to the other side (Very Big [SR]<–> Very Small [QM]).
It is here that I understand String Theory (or M-Theory or whatever flavor it is these days) is trying to work in but has a ways to go yet (as I heard it the theory this time is ahead of the mathematical tools…usually a new math tool leads to new theories but this time it is reversed).
[/nitpick]
As for where the “stuff” came from I too have a hard time getting this. I understand that saying where the stuff came from using our coordinate system (this universe/time) is meaningless. But as others have mentioned you really have two choices here. Either “something” (or “stuff”) has always existed or at some point of asking “what came before” you get “something” from “nothing”.
So either our universe popped out of literal nothingness or it resulted from something somewhere else. A somewhere that may have zero relation to our universe but was still somwhere and somewhen even if we can never describe it.
Are there any other choices to be had?
Yes. As I said in my earlier post you could be actually getting nothing from nothing. You can read about it here.