Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Your thoughts on: Big Bang theory

iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 10:56:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 6:42:02 PM, Munchkins wrote:
Please share your thoughts with the Big Bang theory.

Hi BigBang theory. I really hate work today ;)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 5:51:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 10:56:55 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 1/6/2014 6:42:02 PM, Munchkins wrote:
Please share your thoughts with the Big Bang theory.

Hi BigBang theory. I really hate work today ;)

Pedants. Pedants everywhere.
Munchkins
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 8:29:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 10:56:55 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 1/6/2014 6:42:02 PM, Munchkins wrote:
Please share your thoughts with the Big Bang theory.

Hi BigBang theory. I really hate work today ;)

Please share your thoughts of the Big Bang theory, then.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 9:13:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The universe has either been here forever or started at some point in the past.

From observing the universe we have discovered that the light from distant galaxies is red-shifted in proportion to their distance from us and that there is a uniform background radiation at 2.7 K.

The most likely interpretation of this evidence is that the universe started as a hot dense expanding collection of matter, which was caustically dubbed the Big Bang theory by the steady state proponent Fred Hoyle.

Since the big bang event happened so long ago it is very difficult to be very confident in the theory but is held to be the best we have at the moment. There are problems with the theory, most of which are solved by the hyper inflation modification to the theory by Alan Guth.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 4:56:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hi Munchkins

Sorry, I was in a good mood yesterday.

Anyway, the Big Bang should be considered the singularity from which the universe "comes". Everything beyond the singularity cannot be observed but can only be deduced mathematically.

BTW:soory for the use of the vague word comes, I could not think of a better word.
ImSomebody
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 12:32:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 9:13:48 AM, chui wrote:
The universe has either been here forever or started at some point in the past.

From observing the universe we have discovered that the light from distant galaxies is red-shifted in proportion to their distance from us and that there is a uniform background radiation at 2.7 K.

The most likely interpretation of this evidence is that the universe started as a hot dense expanding collection of matter, which was caustically dubbed the Big Bang theory by the steady state proponent Fred Hoyle.

Since the big bang event happened so long ago it is very difficult to be very confident in the theory but is held to be the best we have at the moment. There are problems with the theory, most of which are solved by the hyper inflation modification to the theory by Alan Guth.

The founded evidence may have been from the Universe being very dense at a certain point in time (Matter being very compact), then exploding (Cataclysmic explosion), distributing. However, it doesn't PROVE the theory, it simply shows probability; likeliness.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 3:52:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 12:32:29 AM, ImSomebody wrote:
At 1/7/2014 9:13:48 AM, chui wrote:
The universe has either been here forever or started at some point in the past.

From observing the universe we have discovered that the light from distant galaxies is red-shifted in proportion to their distance from us and that there is a uniform background radiation at 2.7 K.

The most likely interpretation of this evidence is that the universe started as a hot dense expanding collection of matter, which was caustically dubbed the Big Bang theory by the steady state proponent Fred Hoyle.

Since the big bang event happened so long ago it is very difficult to be very confident in the theory but is held to be the best we have at the moment. There are problems with the theory, most of which are solved by the hyper inflation modification to the theory by Alan Guth.

The founded evidence may have been from the Universe being very dense at a certain point in time (Matter being very compact), then exploding (Cataclysmic explosion), distributing. However, it doesn't PROVE the theory, it simply shows probability; likeliness.

You cant prove any theory ever.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 5:03:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 12:32:29 AM, ImSomebody wrote:
At 1/7/2014 9:13:48 AM, chui wrote:
The universe has either been here forever or started at some point in the past.

From observing the universe we have discovered that the light from distant galaxies is red-shifted in proportion to their distance from us and that there is a uniform background radiation at 2.7 K.

The most likely interpretation of this evidence is that the universe started as a hot dense expanding collection of matter, which was caustically dubbed the Big Bang theory by the steady state proponent Fred Hoyle.

Since the big bang event happened so long ago it is very difficult to be very confident in the theory but is held to be the best we have at the moment. There are problems with the theory, most of which are solved by the hyper inflation modification to the theory by Alan Guth.

The founded evidence may have been from the Universe being very dense at a certain point in time (Matter being very compact), then exploding (Cataclysmic explosion), distributing. However, it doesn't PROVE the theory, it simply shows probability; likeliness.

The big bang event is not an explosion.
ImSomebody
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 8:53:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 5:03:07 AM, chui wrote:
At 1/11/2014 12:32:29 AM, ImSomebody wrote:
At 1/7/2014 9:13:48 AM, chui wrote:
The universe has either been here forever or started at some point in the past.

From observing the universe we have discovered that the light from distant galaxies is red-shifted in proportion to their distance from us and that there is a uniform background radiation at 2.7 K.

The most likely interpretation of this evidence is that the universe started as a hot dense expanding collection of matter, which was caustically dubbed the Big Bang theory by the steady state proponent Fred Hoyle.

Since the big bang event happened so long ago it is very difficult to be very confident in the theory but is held to be the best we have at the moment. There are problems with the theory, most of which are solved by the hyper inflation modification to the theory by Alan Guth.

The founded evidence may have been from the Universe being very dense at a certain point in time (Matter being very compact), then exploding (Cataclysmic explosion), distributing. However, it doesn't PROVE the theory, it simply shows probability; likeliness.

The big bang event is not an explosion.

What you miss out on is the fact that people have different interpretations of it.
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 7:57:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 6:42:02 PM, Munchkins wrote:
Please share your thoughts with the Big Bang theory.

To be absolutely honest, it don't befund me. Who cares, lets try focusing on the here and now.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/14/2014 3:22:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 8:53:37 AM, ImSomebody wrote:
At 1/13/2014 5:03:07 AM, chui wrote:
At 1/11/2014 12:32:29 AM, ImSomebody wrote:
At 1/7/2014 9:13:48 AM, chui wrote:
The universe has either been here forever or started at some point in the past.

From observing the universe we have discovered that the light from distant galaxies is red-shifted in proportion to their distance from us and that there is a uniform background radiation at 2.7 K.

The most likely interpretation of this evidence is that the universe started as a hot dense expanding collection of matter, which was caustically dubbed the Big Bang theory by the steady state proponent Fred Hoyle.

Since the big bang event happened so long ago it is very difficult to be very confident in the theory but is held to be the best we have at the moment. There are problems with the theory, most of which are solved by the hyper inflation modification to the theory by Alan Guth.

The founded evidence may have been from the Universe being very dense at a certain point in time (Matter being very compact), then exploding (Cataclysmic explosion), distributing. However, it doesn't PROVE the theory, it simply shows probability; likeliness.

The big bang event is not an explosion.

What you miss out on is the fact that people have different interpretations of it.

Yes people do. But those who have studied it tend to agree that space is expanding and not that the universe is/was exploding.
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 8:13:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Big Bang theory is commonly misunderstood. Here is an excellent video on it.

http://m.youtube.com...
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 8:36:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Big Bang theory is commonly misunderstood. Here is an excellent video on it.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 9:58:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 6:42:02 PM, Munchkins wrote:
Please share your thoughts with the Big Bang theory.

I'll tell you my theory.
It's a little story Inspired by science.
In it, I propose that the Big Bang was initiated with the creation of a conscious observer.
It's not completely without argument.

Before the big bang, there was space, and there was a universe in that space.
But there was no conscious observer.
Time did not exist.

The universe roiled. It's forces pulled and pushed the matter around.
New things were constantly being pressed into existence, then pulled apart again.

I can't say how long the void lasted. Concepts like, beginnings, and ends, did not exist before consciousness. So, it would not be false to say that the void had no beginning.
It just was, and it continued to be until one particular configuration of matter was aware of itself.

Time began in that moment, because the self awareness stopped itself from being pulled back apart by the forces of the void.
To survive, was the first choice that self awareness ever made.
Then the self awareness continued to make choices.
With each new choice came a new instance of time.
Every choice made a new second, and each second piled one on top of another, and the Big Bang had begun.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
Fukkum
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 10:35:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 9:58:16 PM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
At 1/6/2014 6:42:02 PM, Munchkins wrote:
Please share your thoughts with the Big Bang theory.

I'll tell you my theory.
It's a little story Inspired by science.
In it, I propose that the Big Bang was initiated with the creation of a conscious observer.
It's not completely without argument.


Before the big bang, there was space, and there was a universe in that space.
But there was no conscious observer.
Time did not exist.

The universe roiled. It's forces pulled and pushed the matter around.
New things were constantly being pressed into existence, then pulled apart again.

I can't say how long the void lasted. Concepts like, beginnings, and ends, did not exist before consciousness. So, it would not be false to say that the void had no beginning.
It just was, and it continued to be until one particular configuration of matter was aware of itself.

Time began in that moment, because the self awareness stopped itself from being pulled back apart by the forces of the void.
To survive, was the first choice that self awareness ever made.
Then the self awareness continued to make choices.
With each new choice came a new instance of time.
Every choice made a new second, and each second piled one on top of another, and the Big Bang had begun.

There are some flaws in this.

1. Without time, no events can happen. Time coming into existence is an event. So, how is it that time can come into existence while it doesn't exist, as other events can not occur.

I may list more flaws later.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 10:45:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 9:58:16 PM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
At 1/6/2014 6:42:02 PM, Munchkins wrote:
Please share your thoughts with the Big Bang theory.

I'll tell you my theory.
It's a little story Inspired by science.
In it, I propose that the Big Bang was initiated with the creation of a conscious observer.
It's not completely without argument.


Before the big bang, there was space, and there was a universe in that space.
But there was no conscious observer.
Time did not exist.

The universe roiled. It's forces pulled and pushed the matter around.
New things were constantly being pressed into existence, then pulled apart again.

I can't say how long the void lasted. Concepts like, beginnings, and ends, did not exist before consciousness. So, it would not be false to say that the void had no beginning.
It just was, and it continued to be until one particular configuration of matter was aware of itself.

Time began in that moment, because the self awareness stopped itself from being pulled back apart by the forces of the void.
To survive, was the first choice that self awareness ever made.
Then the self awareness continued to make choices.
With each new choice came a new instance of time.
Every choice made a new second, and each second piled one on top of another, and the Big Bang had begun.

Why does a consciousness decide that is should not be pulled apart, does the not getting pulled apart reflect fluctuations (pulling apart/pushing together).

Also why does it have to be a first observer? I mean whats so special about the observer position?
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 12:54:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 10:45:47 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 1/17/2014 9:58:16 PM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
At 1/6/2014 6:42:02 PM, Munchkins wrote:
Please share your thoughts with the Big Bang theory.

I'll tell you my theory.
It's a little story Inspired by science.
In it, I propose that the Big Bang was initiated with the creation of a conscious observer.
It's not completely without argument.


Before the big bang, there was space, and there was a universe in that space.
But there was no conscious observer.
Time did not exist.

The universe roiled. It's forces pulled and pushed the matter around.
New things were constantly being pressed into existence, then pulled apart again.

I can't say how long the void lasted. Concepts like, beginnings, and ends, did not exist before consciousness. So, it would not be false to say that the void had no beginning.
It just was, and it continued to be until one particular configuration of matter was aware of itself.

Time began in that moment, because the self awareness stopped itself from being pulled back apart by the forces of the void.
To survive, was the first choice that self awareness ever made.
Then the self awareness continued to make choices.
With each new choice came a new instance of time.
Every choice made a new second, and each second piled one on top of another, and the Big Bang had begun.

Why does a consciousness decide that is should not be pulled apart, does the not getting pulled apart reflect fluctuations (pulling apart/pushing together).

The getting pulled apart reflects the mindless fluctuations of the void.
Which leads nicely to the next answer.......

Also why does it have to be a first observer? I mean whats so special about the observer position?

The power of choice.

The self awareness is the opposition to the void.
Rather than existence being some kind of monumental struggle between good and evil, it is simply the choice the observer makes to keep being self aware.
If the observer ends, then the universe experiences the Big Crunch.

Maybe!

Because now there are more observers.
And some of those observers are trying to create what they call artificial observers.
Only, they won't be Really be artificial once we've created them. They will just be different kinds of observers, who will probably, eventually, want to create artificial observers of their own.

If that is happening all over the universe in all possible carnations, then I don't see why there has to be an end at all.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 1:15:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 10:35:41 PM, Fukkum wrote:
At 1/17/2014 9:58:16 PM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
At 1/6/2014 6:42:02 PM, Munchkins wrote:
Please share your thoughts with the Big Bang theory.

I'll tell you my theory.
It's a little story Inspired by science.
In it, I propose that the Big Bang was initiated with the creation of a conscious observer.
It's not completely without argument.


Before the big bang, there was space, and there was a universe in that space.
But there was no conscious observer.
Time did not exist.

The universe roiled. It's forces pulled and pushed the matter around.
New things were constantly being pressed into existence, then pulled apart again.

I can't say how long the void lasted. Concepts like, beginnings, and ends, did not exist before consciousness. So, it would not be false to say that the void had no beginning.
It just was, and it continued to be until one particular configuration of matter was aware of itself.

Time began in that moment, because the self awareness stopped itself from being pulled back apart by the forces of the void.
To survive, was the first choice that self awareness ever made.
Then the self awareness continued to make choices.
With each new choice came a new instance of time.
Every choice made a new second, and each second piled one on top of another, and the Big Bang had begun.

There are some flaws in this.

1. Without time, no events can happen. Time coming into existence is an event. So, how is it that time can come into existence while it doesn't exist, as other events can not occur.

I may list more flaws later.

Good question. I have an answer.....

Without an observer there is no meaning to events.
The forces build, and tear apart, all over the universe uniformly.
The universes actions are like an Archimedes screw.
If you had no handle on the screw, then you would have no way of knowing when a full revolution of the screw had been made.
No beginning, no end, no event.

Now comes the observer.
The observer puts a handle on the screw.
Now, as the handle turns, you can imagine the beginning and end of a repeating cycle.
Every time the handle is at twelve o'clock a new event begins.

Time is only a boundary between events.
Time is created by the very act of observing the beginning and end of an event.
This means that time is not physical. It is an imagined thing. The events as defined by the observer are also made up by the observer.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 6:44:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 12:54:50 AM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
At 1/17/2014 10:45:47 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 1/17/2014 9:58:16 PM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
At 1/6/2014 6:42:02 PM, Munchkins wrote:
Please share your thoughts with the Big Bang theory.

I'll tell you my theory.
It's a little story Inspired by science.
In it, I propose that the Big Bang was initiated with the creation of a conscious observer.
It's not completely without argument.


Before the big bang, there was space, and there was a universe in that space.
But there was no conscious observer.
Time did not exist.

The universe roiled. It's forces pulled and pushed the matter around.
New things were constantly being pressed into existence, then pulled apart again.

I can't say how long the void lasted. Concepts like, beginnings, and ends, did not exist before consciousness. So, it would not be false to say that the void had no beginning.
It just was, and it continued to be until one particular configuration of matter was aware of itself.

Time began in that moment, because the self awareness stopped itself from being pulled back apart by the forces of the void.
To survive, was the first choice that self awareness ever made.
Then the self awareness continued to make choices.
With each new choice came a new instance of time.
Every choice made a new second, and each second piled one on top of another, and the Big Bang had begun.

Why does a consciousness decide that is should not be pulled apart, does the not getting pulled apart reflect fluctuations (pulling apart/pushing together).

The getting pulled apart reflects the mindless fluctuations of the void.
Which leads nicely to the next answer.......

So now a fluctuation has to adapt a conscious state. I say this as all of a sudden the word mindless has crept in and there is still no reason to say there must be an observer. Fluctuations in energy may seem random and mindless but how can you prove that when equilibrium is what a system tends to.

Also why does it have to be a first observer? I mean whats so special about the observer position?

The power of choice.

The self awareness is the opposition to the void.
Rather than existence being some kind of monumental struggle between good and evil, it is simply the choice the observer makes to keep being self aware.
If the observer ends, then the universe experiences the Big Crunch.

This I don't get you jump from consciousness to good and evil without even verifying the need of a consciousness and defining what is good and what is evil.
Maybe!

Because now there are more observers.
And some of those observers are trying to create what they call artificial observers.
Only, they won't be Really be artificial once we've created them. They will just be different kinds of observers, who will probably, eventually, want to create artificial observers of their own.

So man is equal to the initial observer then?

If that is happening all over the universe in all possible carnations, then I don't see why there has to be an end at all.

Heat Death is a ling way away from the Big Bang
Pareidolic-Dreamer
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 9:57:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 6:44:57 AM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 1/18/2014 12:54:50 AM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
At 1/17/2014 10:45:47 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 1/17/2014 9:58:16 PM, Pareidolic-Dreamer wrote:
At 1/6/2014 6:42:02 PM, Munchkins wrote:
Please share your thoughts with the Big Bang theory.

I'll tell you my theory.
It's a little story Inspired by science.
In it, I propose that the Big Bang was initiated with the creation of a conscious observer.
It's not completely without argument.


Before the big bang, there was space, and there was a universe in that space.
But there was no conscious observer.
Time did not exist.

The universe roiled. It's forces pulled and pushed the matter around.
New things were constantly being pressed into existence, then pulled apart again.

I can't say how long the void lasted. Concepts like, beginnings, and ends, did not exist before consciousness. So, it would not be false to say that the void had no beginning.
It just was, and it continued to be until one particular configuration of matter was aware of itself.

Time began in that moment, because the self awareness stopped itself from being pulled back apart by the forces of the void.
To survive, was the first choice that self awareness ever made.
Then the self awareness continued to make choices.
With each new choice came a new instance of time.
Every choice made a new second, and each second piled one on top of another, and the Big Bang had begun.

Why does a consciousness decide that is should not be pulled apart, does the not getting pulled apart reflect fluctuations (pulling apart/pushing together).

The getting pulled apart reflects the mindless fluctuations of the void.
Which leads nicely to the next answer.......

So now a fluctuation has to adapt a conscious state. I say this as all of a sudden the word mindless has crept in and there is still no reason to say there must be an observer. Fluctuations in energy may seem random and mindless but how can you prove that when equilibrium is what a system tends to.

No, I clearly didn't answer the right question.

There is no reason that there has to be an observer.
Before the observer is created, there is no special need for an observer.
The observers beginning is happenstance, just like everything else that happens in The void.
And, before there is an observer, there is no mind in the universe.

So, once the observer is created, it becomes special because it has a mind that is capable of making a choice.

Furthermore, equilibrium is only the tendency of a system, because of the order the observer brings against the chaos.

And as for how I can prove it? Lol. We can't even prove that there was actually a Big Bang. I can't prove it. It wasn't my intent to prove it. As I said at the beginning, it's just a story inspired by science.


Also why does it have to be a first observer? I mean whats so special about the observer position?

The power of choice.

The self awareness is the opposition to the void.
Rather than existence being some kind of monumental struggle between good and evil, it is simply the choice the observer makes to keep being self aware.
If the observer ends, then the universe experiences the Big Crunch.

This I don't get you jump from consciousness to good and evil without even verifying the need of a consciousness and defining what is good and what is evil.
Maybe!


Yeah you're right. Forget I said this part. I was jumping ahead to part of the conversation we never got to. I thought the conversation was headed that way, but I was mistaken.

Because now there are more observers.
And some of those observers are trying to create what they call artificial observers.
Only, they won't be Really be artificial once we've created them. They will just be different kinds of observers, who will probably, eventually, want to create artificial observers of their own.

So man is equal to the initial observer then?

I say yes. Man is equal to the initial observer. We are younger than the initial observer. We have not yet learned to manipulate matter on the level of the initial observer.
However, there is no thing that stops us from learning those things.

If that is happening all over the universe in all possible carnations, then I don't see why there has to be an end at all.

Heat Death is a ling way away from the Big Bang

Yes, but I say even heat death does not have to happen as long as there is an observer to choose to maintain order from chaos.
Pareidolic-Dreamer
I see wall people.

When I argue against someone's truths, I always feel like I am arguing just as strongly against my own.
ImSomebody
Posts: 6
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 5:30:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 11:46:24 AM, DuerDidIt wrote:
Hi Big Bang Theory,
this day is really really really really really bad

At 1/22/2014 11:46:24 AM, DuerDidIt wrote:
Hi Big Bang Theory,
this day is really really really really really bad

Hi, smart *ss. Munchkins already fixed this. Read the other posts before posting, please.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 7:40:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 6:42:02 PM, Munchkins wrote:
Please share your thoughts with the Big Bang theory.

General relativity itself is in question. Especially after the scientist in China recently discovered matter can travel faster then the speed of light. Not to mention a slew of other incredible scientific discoveries this last few years.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 7:51:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 7:40:58 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 6:42:02 PM, Munchkins wrote:
Please share your thoughts with the Big Bang theory.

General relativity itself is in question. Especially after the scientist in China recently discovered matter can travel faster then the speed of light. Not to mention a slew of other incredible scientific discoveries this last few years.

I gather you are talking about the quantum entanglement experiment last year? And this is not matter moving faster than the speed of light.

If I am thinking of the wrong article please send me in the right direction thanks.

http://www.livescience.com...
BChart2
Posts: 40
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 8:06:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 6:42:02 PM, Munchkins wrote:
Please share your thoughts with the Big Bang theory.

I think the term "Big Bang" needs to go.
It wasn't an explosion, rather rapid expansion of time and space.

It's a misnomer that causes nothing but confusion.

Here's an example.
http://static.fjcdn.com...
Problems with this:
1. There wasn't nothing.
2. It didn't explode.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 8:07:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 7:51:25 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:40:58 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 6:42:02 PM, Munchkins wrote:
Please share your thoughts with the Big Bang theory.

General relativity itself is in question. Especially after the scientist in China recently discovered matter can travel faster then the speed of light. Not to mention a slew of other incredible scientific discoveries this last few years.

I gather you are talking about the quantum entanglement experiment last year? And this is not matter moving faster than the speed of light.

If I am thinking of the wrong article please send me in the right direction thanks.

http://www.livescience.com...

Thats right. But my point was more on how some scientist are questioning general relativity because they are finding these inaccuracies. And if general relativity in inaccurate what would that make the big bang?
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 8:20:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 8:07:35 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:51:25 PM, iamanatheistandthisiswhy wrote:
At 1/22/2014 7:40:58 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 6:42:02 PM, Munchkins wrote:
Please share your thoughts with the Big Bang theory.

General relativity itself is in question. Especially after the scientist in China recently discovered matter can travel faster then the speed of light. Not to mention a slew of other incredible scientific discoveries this last few years.

I gather you are talking about the quantum entanglement experiment last year? And this is not matter moving faster than the speed of light.

If I am thinking of the wrong article please send me in the right direction thanks.

http://www.livescience.com...

Thats right. But my point was more on how some scientist are questioning general relativity because they are finding these inaccuracies. And if general relativity in inaccurate what would that make the big bang?

Interesting question, after all we don't have a full model which includes gravity anyway. However, the model works and so its the best we have until we can get a unified theory.
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 8:21:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 8:06:23 PM, BChart2 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 6:42:02 PM, Munchkins wrote:
Please share your thoughts with the Big Bang theory.

I think the term "Big Bang" needs to go.
It wasn't an explosion, rather rapid expansion of time and space.

It's a misnomer that causes nothing but confusion.

Here's an example.
http://static.fjcdn.com...
Problems with this:
1. There wasn't nothing.
2. It didn't explode.

Agreed, even Hoyle hated the word. Even though he was not a proponent of the Big Bang he coined the word and regretted it.
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 8:36:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
here's my thought on the big bang. The big bang didn't need a God to start it because before the big bang happened time didn't exist outside the infinitely small point that would expand to become our universe therefore causality didn't exist therefore it is possible for the big bang to be an effect without a cause.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson