Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Problems with the big bang theory

josht
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:40:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I dont understand why people still even take this seriously I mean I can even understand why some people believe in evolution but the big bang theory is just plain stupid. I was looking for reasons why the big bang theory is not possible and have come up with some of the following:

1. Where did the thing that exploded come from? Even if the big bang theory is true there must have been someone(God) to cause it.

2. The cosmic radiation doesnt prove the big bang theory it just doesnt disprove it.

3. Ive read somewhere that there is a huge group of distant galaxies that couldnt have formed in ordinary ways the big bang theory predicts.

4. If everything was homogenos in the beginning like the big bang theory says why do we have galaxies and stars and planets while really all matter in the universe should be spread evenly.

I am eager to see what big bang supporters come up with here.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 6:49:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:40:37 AM, josht wrote:
I dont understand why people still even take this seriously I mean I can even understand why some people believe in evolution but the big bang theory is just plain stupid. I was looking for reasons why the big bang theory is not possible and have come up with some of the following:

1. Where did the thing that exploded come from?

Dunno. Maybe nowhere; maybe from nothing. The question may even irrelevant!

Even if the big bang theory is true there must have been someone(God) to cause it.

Why? I know exactly what you're going to say.

You're going to say everything needs a cause; even though we sort of know that isn't actually true in quantum physics; and that it is not possible for something to just exist.

You're going to say that because everything needs a cause, and things can't just exist; then a powerful entity that doesn't need a cause and just exists made the universe.

You can't have this both ways.

2. The cosmic radiation doesnt prove the big bang theory it just doesnt disprove it.

The big bang predicted the existance of the cosmic radiation, as a hot expanse of dense gas would be radiation opaque due to it's physical properties when it is that hot, and then as it cooled past a specific temperature would emit radiation in all directions at a very specific temperature as it ceased to be radiation opaque.

The temperature and the general homogenity of it are exactly what is predicted, and there isn't really any other explanation for why the universe is flooded with radiation in all directions that happens to have all the properties of black body radiation from a universe-sized cooling gas cloud.

3. Ive read somewhere that there is a huge group of distant galaxies that couldnt have formed in ordinary ways the big bang theory predicts.

"I've read somewhere". That sounds like a compelling source. Unless you have specifics, I will leave this.

4. If everything was homogenos in the beginning like the big bang theory says why do we have galaxies and stars and planets while really all matter in the universe should be spread evenly.

If only there were some sort of force that pulls matter together; and allows it to clump and gather into stars, planets and galaxies....

The universe was almost totally homogenous in the beggining. Almost. there are very, very tiny deviations (and you can see this in the background radiation!); and there has to be due to minute quantum fluctuations affecting what would have been equilibrium.

I am eager to see what big bang supporters come up with here.

I don't really think you are.
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 7:36:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:40:37 AM, josht wrote:
I dont understand why people still even take this seriously I mean I can even understand why some people believe in evolution but the big bang theory is just plain stupid. I was looking for reasons why the big bang theory is not possible and have come up with some of the following:

1. Where did the thing that exploded come from? Even if the big bang theory is true there must have been someone(God) to cause it.

2. The cosmic radiation doesnt prove the big bang theory it just doesnt disprove it.

3. Ive read somewhere that there is a huge group of distant galaxies that couldnt have formed in ordinary ways the big bang theory predicts.

4. If everything was homogenos in the beginning like the big bang theory says why do we have galaxies and stars and planets while really all matter in the universe should be spread evenly.

I am eager to see what big bang supporters come up with here.

What is your explanation for cosmic red-shift and cosmic radiation?
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:19:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:40:37 AM, josht wrote:
I dont understand why people still even take this seriously I mean I can even understand why some people believe in evolution but the big bang theory is just plain stupid. I was looking for reasons why the big bang theory is not possible and have come up with some of the following:

1. Where did the thing that exploded come from? Even if the big bang theory is true there must have been someone(God) to cause it.

Depends on how you define the Big Bang. Do you think there was space before it or not?

2. The cosmic radiation doesnt prove the big bang theory it just doesnt disprove it.

The Big Bang predicted the CBR, and then we found it.

3. Ive read somewhere that there is a huge group of distant galaxies that couldnt have formed in ordinary ways the big bang theory predicts.

Actually, with just the natural laws that we have currently discovered, a universe almost exactly like ours would form.
http://www.haaretz.com...

4. If everything was homogenos in the beginning like the big bang theory says why do we have galaxies and stars and planets while really all matter in the universe should be spread evenly.

Gravity. Dark matter helps. Newly discovered grey matter might have something to do with it.

I am eager to see what big bang supporters come up with here.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
josht
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:29:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 6:49:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:40:37 AM, josht wrote:
I dont understand why people still even take this seriously I mean I can even understand why some people believe in evolution but the big bang theory is just plain stupid. I was looking for reasons why the big bang theory is not possible and have come up with some of the following:

1. Where did the thing that exploded come from?

Dunno. Maybe nowhere; maybe from nothing. The question may even irrelevant!

I find it hard to believe that everything came from nothing. After all doesnt this violate the laws of thermodynamics?

Even if the big bang theory is true there must have been someone(God) to cause it.

Why? I know exactly what you're going to say.

You're going to say everything needs a cause; even though we sort of know that isn't actually true in quantum physics; and that it is not possible for something to just exist.

You're going to say that because everything needs a cause, and things can't just exist; then a powerful entity that doesn't need a cause and just exists made the universe.

You can't have this both ways.

I also know that you will say that matter can spontanosly shortly form in space but guess what? IN SPACE. The big bang theory(or perhaps more accurately hypothesis/blind guess) states that space didnt exist before the big bang so how did matter form accidentaly in space before there was even space?

2. The cosmic radiation doesnt prove the big bang theory it just doesnt disprove it.

The big bang predicted the existance of the cosmic radiation, as a hot expanse of dense gas would be radiation opaque due to it's physical properties when it is that hot, and then as it cooled past a specific temperature would emit radiation in all directions at a very specific temperature as it ceased to be radiation opaque.

The temperature and the general homogenity of it are exactly what is predicted, and there isn't really any other explanation for why the universe is flooded with radiation in all directions that happens to have all the properties of black body radiation from a universe-sized cooling gas cloud.

As I said this is like the fossil record for evolution. It doesnt prove it it is merely compatible.

3. Ive read somewhere that there is a huge group of distant galaxies that couldnt have formed in ordinary ways the big bang theory predicts.

"I've read somewhere". That sounds like a compelling source. Unless you have specifics, I will leave this.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

4. If everything was homogenos in the beginning like the big bang theory says why do we have galaxies and stars and planets while really all matter in the universe should be spread evenly.

If only there were some sort of force that pulls matter together; and allows it to clump and gather into stars, planets and galaxies....

The universe was almost totally homogenous in the beggining. Almost. there are very, very tiny deviations (and you can see this in the background radiation!); and there has to be due to minute quantum fluctuations affecting what would have been equilibrium.

I guess that makes sense(no sarcasm involved in there) but the other points still stand.
josht
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:31:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:19:52 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:40:37 AM, josht wrote:
I dont understand why people still even take this seriously I mean I can even understand why some people believe in evolution but the big bang theory is just plain stupid. I was looking for reasons why the big bang theory is not possible and have come up with some of the following:

1. Where did the thing that exploded come from? Even if the big bang theory is true there must have been someone(God) to cause it.

Depends on how you define the Big Bang. Do you think there was space before it or not?

The big bang theory says there wasnt so I will say no to follow its 'rules'.

2. The cosmic radiation doesnt prove the big bang theory it just doesnt disprove it.

The Big Bang predicted the CBR, and then we found it.

Irrelevant.

3. Ive read somewhere that there is a huge group of distant galaxies that couldnt have formed in ordinary ways the big bang theory predicts.

Actually, with just the natural laws that we have currently discovered, a universe almost exactly like ours would form.
http://www.haaretz.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

4. If everything was homogenos in the beginning like the big bang theory says why do we have galaxies and stars and planets while really all matter in the universe should be spread evenly.

Gravity. Dark matter helps. Newly discovered grey matter might have something to do with it.

Ok other people ignore this question a poster before explained it already and I admit that my own point wasnt valid.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:39:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:31:17 PM, josht wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:19:52 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:40:37 AM, josht wrote:
I dont understand why people still even take this seriously I mean I can even understand why some people believe in evolution but the big bang theory is just plain stupid. I was looking for reasons why the big bang theory is not possible and have come up with some of the following:

1. Where did the thing that exploded come from? Even if the big bang theory is true there must have been someone(God) to cause it.

Depends on how you define the Big Bang. Do you think there was space before it or not?

The big bang theory says there wasnt so I will say no to follow its 'rules'.

Then, if the B-Theory of Time is correct, there was no time before the Big Bang. This means that the Big Bang, under the B-Theory of Time, is uncaused.

2. The cosmic radiation doesnt prove the big bang theory it just doesnt disprove it.

The Big Bang predicted the CBR, and then we found it.

Irrelevant.

How so? Making predictions, then finding the predictions to be correct is a great way to show that it is correct. If there was no CBR, then the prediction made would be wrong, and the Big Bang theory would most likely be wrong.

3. Ive read somewhere that there is a huge group of distant galaxies that couldnt have formed in ordinary ways the big bang theory predicts.

Actually, with just the natural laws that we have currently discovered, a universe almost exactly like ours would form.
http://www.haaretz.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Did you look at the link I provided?

4. If everything was homogenos in the beginning like the big bang theory says why do we have galaxies and stars and planets while really all matter in the universe should be spread evenly.

Gravity. Dark matter helps. Newly discovered grey matter might have something to do with it.

Ok other people ignore this question a poster before explained it already and I admit that my own point wasnt valid.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 5:42:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:29:06 PM, josht wrote:
At 10/21/2014 6:49:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:40:37 AM, josht wrote:
I dont understand why people still even take this seriously I mean I can even understand why some people believe in evolution but the big bang theory is just plain stupid. I was looking for reasons why the big bang theory is not possible and have come up with some of the following:

1. Where did the thing that exploded come from?

Dunno. Maybe nowhere; maybe from nothing. The question may even irrelevant!

I find it hard to believe that everything came from nothing. After all doesnt this violate the laws of thermodynamics?

The bolded part is your problem. I find it hard to beleive a lot of things that are true; especially with regards to the universe and what we know to be true (for example, quantum theory). What is right is not gaurenteed to be easily to beleive.

It only violates the laws of thermodynamics if the sum of energy in the universe is not still 0; there is evidence to show that there is enough negative energy in the universe to balance out the positive energy; ergo the universe could well be a zero-sum gain. Energy is not created, nor destroyed.


Even if the big bang theory is true there must have been someone(God) to cause it.

Why? I know exactly what you're going to say.

You're going to say everything needs a cause; even though we sort of know that isn't actually true in quantum physics; and that it is not possible for something to just exist.

You're going to say that because everything needs a cause, and things can't just exist; then a powerful entity that doesn't need a cause and just exists made the universe.

You can't have this both ways.

I also know that you will say that matter can spontanosly shortly form in space but guess what? IN SPACE. The big bang theory(or perhaps more accurately hypothesis/blind guess) states that space didnt exist before the big bang so how did matter form accidentaly in space before there was even space?

Firstly, the big bang says nothing about the conditions before; in fact it is quite honest and says the laws of known physics do not work at the point of the big bang, so anything before is unknown.

I don't know what was before, or even if there was a before. There could be a multiverse; the universe could exist in some other higher reality; or a number of other speculative idea's that are just as valid as speculating about God.

The bottom line is, that by invoking God, you solve the problem of cause by saying "Everything needs a cause.... Apart from this... this doesn't." As a result, it is just as valid as saying the same thing, without God. Both solve the problem, and bother suffer from the same issue.

2. The cosmic radiation doesnt prove the big bang theory it just doesnt disprove it.

The big bang predicted the existance of the cosmic radiation, as a hot expanse of dense gas would be radiation opaque due to it's physical properties when it is that hot, and then as it cooled past a specific temperature would emit radiation in all directions at a very specific temperature as it ceased to be radiation opaque.

The temperature and the general homogenity of it are exactly what is predicted, and there isn't really any other explanation for why the universe is flooded with radiation in all directions that happens to have all the properties of black body radiation from a universe-sized cooling gas cloud.

As I said this is like the fossil record for evolution. It doesnt prove it it is merely compatible.

"Proof" doesn't exist. Only "Very strong evidence for". Compatible means "it's existance works inside the framework."

As I explained, the CMB is required to exist for the big bang, it was predicted by the big bang, and cannot be meaningfully explained by any other paradigm or theory yet.

As a result, it is very strong evidence for; it is not merely "compatible."

3. Ive read somewhere that there is a huge group of distant galaxies that couldnt have formed in ordinary ways the big bang theory predicts.

"I've read somewhere". That sounds like a compelling source. Unless you have specifics, I will leave this.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Oh interesting; this is indeed a legitimate problem with the theory. However, given quantum theory has issues it doesn't explain, relativity has issues it doesn't explain. newtonian gravity has issues it doesn't explain yet all remain fairly valid; I think that given the other evidence of the big bang, it is merely an incomplete theory that will be replaced.

What people don't often get is that a theory isn't always "All right" or "All wrong" as two binary states. There are shades in between where the theory holds in certain conditions, but not others, or is well supported by evidence, yet contains subtleties that can't be explained indicating additional theory is required.

4. If everything was homogenos in the beginning like the big bang theory says why do we have galaxies and stars and planets while really all matter in the universe should be spread evenly.

If only there were some sort of force that pulls matter together; and allows it to clump and gather into stars, planets and galaxies....

The universe was almost totally homogenous in the beggining. Almost. there are very, very tiny deviations (and you can see this in the background radiation!); and there has to be due to minute quantum fluctuations affecting what would have been equilibrium.

I guess that makes sense(no sarcasm involved in there) but the other points still stand.

Oh, I think that's the first time I've heard someone said that! (No sarcasm from me either!)
josht
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 6:24:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:42:56 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:29:06 PM, josht wrote:
At 10/21/2014 6:49:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:40:37 AM, josht wrote:
I dont understand why people still even take this seriously I mean I can even understand why some people believe in evolution but the big bang theory is just plain stupid. I was looking for reasons why the big bang theory is not possible and have come up with some of the following:

1. Where did the thing that exploded come from?

Dunno. Maybe nowhere; maybe from nothing. The question may even irrelevant!

I find it hard to believe that everything came from nothing. After all doesnt this violate the laws of thermodynamics?

The bolded part is your problem. I find it hard to beleive a lot of things that are true; especially with regards to the universe and what we know to be true (for example, quantum theory). What is right is not gaurenteed to be easily to beleive.

It only violates the laws of thermodynamics if the sum of energy in the universe is not still 0; there is evidence to show that there is enough negative energy in the universe to balance out the positive energy; ergo the universe could well be a zero-sum gain. Energy is not created, nor destroyed.

This is the first time I hear about this. It sounds like it could solve a large part of the problem with the big bang theory but I am going to go ahead and research this myself on the internet a bit too see if these claims have any proof behind them.


Even if the big bang theory is true there must have been someone(God) to cause it.

Why? I know exactly what you're going to say.

You're going to say everything needs a cause; even though we sort of know that isn't actually true in quantum physics; and that it is not possible for something to just exist.

You're going to say that because everything needs a cause, and things can't just exist; then a powerful entity that doesn't need a cause and just exists made the universe.

You can't have this both ways.

I also know that you will say that matter can spontanosly shortly form in space but guess what? IN SPACE. The big bang theory(or perhaps more accurately hypothesis/blind guess) states that space didnt exist before the big bang so how did matter form accidentaly in space before there was even space?

Firstly, the big bang says nothing about the conditions before; in fact it is quite honest and says the laws of known physics do not work at the point of the big bang, so anything before is unknown.

I don't know what was before, or even if there was a before. There could be a multiverse; the universe could exist in some other higher reality; or a number of other speculative idea's that are just as valid as speculating about God.

The bottom line is, that by invoking God, you solve the problem of cause by saying "Everything needs a cause.... Apart from this... this doesn't." As a result, it is just as valid as saying the same thing, without God. Both solve the problem, and bother suffer from the same issue.

But wouldnt God be the most logical conclusion? The huge complexity of the universe based on just a few laws seems to indicate a creator.

2. The cosmic radiation doesnt prove the big bang theory it just doesnt disprove it.

The big bang predicted the existance of the cosmic radiation, as a hot expanse of dense gas would be radiation opaque due to it's physical properties when it is that hot, and then as it cooled past a specific temperature would emit radiation in all directions at a very specific temperature as it ceased to be radiation opaque.

The temperature and the general homogenity of it are exactly what is predicted, and there isn't really any other explanation for why the universe is flooded with radiation in all directions that happens to have all the properties of black body radiation from a universe-sized cooling gas cloud.

As I said this is like the fossil record for evolution. It doesnt prove it it is merely compatible.

"Proof" doesn't exist. Only "Very strong evidence for". Compatible means "it's existance works inside the framework."

As I explained, the CMB is required to exist for the big bang, it was predicted by the big bang, and cannot be meaningfully explained by any other paradigm or theory yet.

As a result, it is very strong evidence for; it is not merely "compatible."

It doesnt have to be maybe we just dont know other mechanisms that could be used to explain its formation.

3. Ive read somewhere that there is a huge group of distant galaxies that couldnt have formed in ordinary ways the big bang theory predicts.

"I've read somewhere". That sounds like a compelling source. Unless you have specifics, I will leave this.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Oh interesting; this is indeed a legitimate problem with the theory. However, given quantum theory has issues it doesn't explain, relativity has issues it doesn't explain. newtonian gravity has issues it doesn't explain yet all remain fairly valid; I think that given the other evidence of the big bang, it is merely an incomplete theory that will be replaced.

What people don't often get is that a theory isn't always "All right" or "All wrong" as two binary states. There are shades in between where the theory holds in certain conditions, but not others, or is well supported by evidence, yet contains subtleties that can't be explained indicating additional theory is required.

Alright but still this means that a significient part of the current theory is incorrect which undermines the whole theory kind of.
josht
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 6:27:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 5:39:54 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:31:17 PM, josht wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:19:52 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:40:37 AM, josht wrote:
I dont understand why people still even take this seriously I mean I can even understand why some people believe in evolution but the big bang theory is just plain stupid. I was looking for reasons why the big bang theory is not possible and have come up with some of the following:

1. Where did the thing that exploded come from? Even if the big bang theory is true there must have been someone(God) to cause it.

Depends on how you define the Big Bang. Do you think there was space before it or not?

The big bang theory says there wasnt so I will say no to follow its 'rules'.

Then, if the B-Theory of Time is correct, there was no time before the Big Bang. This means that the Big Bang, under the B-Theory of Time, is uncaused.

I dont know why but that makes almost no sense to me. What there was nothing not space not time and all of a sudden everything? For no reason?

2. The cosmic radiation doesnt prove the big bang theory it just doesnt disprove it.

The Big Bang predicted the CBR, and then we found it.

Irrelevant.

How so? Making predictions, then finding the predictions to be correct is a great way to show that it is correct. If there was no CBR, then the prediction made would be wrong, and the Big Bang theory would most likely be wrong.

Remember that geocentrism also made a bunch of correct predictions before it was disproven.

3. Ive read somewhere that there is a huge group of distant galaxies that couldnt have formed in ordinary ways the big bang theory predicts.

Actually, with just the natural laws that we have currently discovered, a universe almost exactly like ours would form.
http://www.haaretz.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Did you look at the link I provided?

I could not sorry I dont have an online bank account.
josht
Posts: 36
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 6:28:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 7:36:07 AM, chui wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:40:37 AM, josht wrote:
I dont understand why people still even take this seriously I mean I can even understand why some people believe in evolution but the big bang theory is just plain stupid. I was looking for reasons why the big bang theory is not possible and have come up with some of the following:

1. Where did the thing that exploded come from? Even if the big bang theory is true there must have been someone(God) to cause it.

2. The cosmic radiation doesnt prove the big bang theory it just doesnt disprove it.

3. Ive read somewhere that there is a huge group of distant galaxies that couldnt have formed in ordinary ways the big bang theory predicts.

4. If everything was homogenos in the beginning like the big bang theory says why do we have galaxies and stars and planets while really all matter in the universe should be spread evenly.

I am eager to see what big bang supporters come up with here.

What is your explanation for cosmic red-shift and cosmic radiation?

I am not denying that the universe is expanding. The Bible itself says that God stretched the heavens. Cosmic radiation probably has other means of forming other than the big bang theory but we dont know them yet.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 6:30:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 6:27:30 PM, josht wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:39:54 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:31:17 PM, josht wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:19:52 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:40:37 AM, josht wrote:
I dont understand why people still even take this seriously I mean I can even understand why some people believe in evolution but the big bang theory is just plain stupid. I was looking for reasons why the big bang theory is not possible and have come up with some of the following:

1. Where did the thing that exploded come from? Even if the big bang theory is true there must have been someone(God) to cause it.

Depends on how you define the Big Bang. Do you think there was space before it or not?

The big bang theory says there wasnt so I will say no to follow its 'rules'.

Then, if the B-Theory of Time is correct, there was no time before the Big Bang. This means that the Big Bang, under the B-Theory of Time, is uncaused.

I dont know why but that makes almost no sense to me. What there was nothing not space not time and all of a sudden everything? For no reason?

Oh, Lawrence Krauss explains how it could happen for a reason, but the B-Theory of Time, which is the most supported theory of time, does not have the universe having a cause.

2. The cosmic radiation doesnt prove the big bang theory it just doesnt disprove it.

The Big Bang predicted the CBR, and then we found it.

Irrelevant.

How so? Making predictions, then finding the predictions to be correct is a great way to show that it is correct. If there was no CBR, then the prediction made would be wrong, and the Big Bang theory would most likely be wrong.

Remember that geocentrism also made a bunch of correct predictions before it was disproven.

It was "disproven" when there was something else found that made better sense of the evidence, better predictions, etc.

3. Ive read somewhere that there is a huge group of distant galaxies that couldnt have formed in ordinary ways the big bang theory predicts.

Actually, with just the natural laws that we have currently discovered, a universe almost exactly like ours would form.
http://www.haaretz.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Did you look at the link I provided?

I could not sorry I dont have an online bank account.

I completely forgot that you had to pay for that. I will try and find an article about it.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 6:48:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 6:24:02 PM, josht wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:42:56 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:29:06 PM, josht wrote:
At 10/21/2014 6:49:39 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:40:37 AM, josht wrote:
I dont understand why people still even take this seriously I mean I can even understand why some people believe in evolution but the big bang theory is just plain stupid. I was looking for reasons why the big bang theory is not possible and have come up with some of the following:

1. Where did the thing that exploded come from?

Dunno. Maybe nowhere; maybe from nothing. The question may even irrelevant!

I find it hard to believe that everything came from nothing. After all doesnt this violate the laws of thermodynamics?

The bolded part is your problem. I find it hard to beleive a lot of things that are true; especially with regards to the universe and what we know to be true (for example, quantum theory). What is right is not gaurenteed to be easily to beleive.

It only violates the laws of thermodynamics if the sum of energy in the universe is not still 0; there is evidence to show that there is enough negative energy in the universe to balance out the positive energy; ergo the universe could well be a zero-sum gain. Energy is not created, nor destroyed.

This is the first time I hear about this. It sounds like it could solve a large part of the problem with the big bang theory but I am going to go ahead and research this myself on the internet a bit too see if these claims have any proof behind them.

Google "A universe from nothing" from Laurence Krauss on Youtube. He gives a pretty good lecture.


Even if the big bang theory is true there must have been someone(God) to cause it.

Why? I know exactly what you're going to say.

You're going to say everything needs a cause; even though we sort of know that isn't actually true in quantum physics; and that it is not possible for something to just exist.

You're going to say that because everything needs a cause, and things can't just exist; then a powerful entity that doesn't need a cause and just exists made the universe.

You can't have this both ways.

I also know that you will say that matter can spontanosly shortly form in space but guess what? IN SPACE. The big bang theory(or perhaps more accurately hypothesis/blind guess) states that space didnt exist before the big bang so how did matter form accidentaly in space before there was even space?

Firstly, the big bang says nothing about the conditions before; in fact it is quite honest and says the laws of known physics do not work at the point of the big bang, so anything before is unknown.

I don't know what was before, or even if there was a before. There could be a multiverse; the universe could exist in some other higher reality; or a number of other speculative idea's that are just as valid as speculating about God.

The bottom line is, that by invoking God, you solve the problem of cause by saying "Everything needs a cause.... Apart from this... this doesn't." As a result, it is just as valid as saying the same thing, without God. Both solve the problem, and bother suffer from the same issue.

But wouldnt God be the most logical conclusion? The huge complexity of the universe based on just a few laws seems to indicate a creator.

I don't think there is any logical conclusion one can draw. It is just as baseless and invalid to suggest God, than to suggest some non-God cause or reason.

To say that it "indicates" God, implies that there is something specific about the universe that mandates a personal creator. While there is complexity; there is nothing about complexity in-and-of itself coming from laws that indicates anything.

2. The cosmic radiation doesnt prove the big bang theory it just doesnt disprove it.
"Proof" doesn't exist. Only "Very strong evidence for". Compatible means "it's existance works inside the framework."

As I explained, the CMB is required to exist for the big bang, it was predicted by the big bang, and cannot be meaningfully explained by any other paradigm or theory yet.

As a result, it is very strong evidence for; it is not merely "compatible."

It doesnt have to be maybe we just dont know other mechanisms that could be used to explain its formation.

That is true for every single theory ever written. It's true for Germ theory, Relativity, Newtonian gravity, everything.

The problem is you can't discount a theory on the grounds that the evidence could potentially be explained by something else that you can't see now; as that will always be true no matter how correct your theory is.

If the evidence can be explained using processes and mechanisms that can be shown to exist; and those that can't, you always have to chose the ones that can. This is basically a principle called Occams Razor, and is very important in science: the theory with the fewest assumptions should be accepted.

3. Ive read somewhere that there is a huge group of distant galaxies that couldnt have formed in ordinary ways the big bang theory predicts.
What people don't often get is that a theory isn't always "All right" or "All wrong" as two binary states. There are shades in between where the theory holds in certain conditions, but not others, or is well supported by evidence, yet contains subtleties that can't be explained indicating additional theory is required.

Alright but still this means that a significient part of the current theory is incorrect which undermines the whole theory kind of.

It doesn't really work like that. Newton is wrong; there were observations that cannot be explained in the same way as the big bang. That did not mean the laws of gravity didn't work any more, but that an additional theory was required; this was relativity, which explained the new data AND explained why newtons laws still worked. So the theory is still correct, but in conditions. The Big Bang works to explain the data, which means that in all likelihood it is simply not complete, or additional physics will be found that still shows an expanding universe, but with modified physics explaining the new observations.

The data the BBT explains is so specific that it is highly unlikely for new physics to show that the universe didn't expand from a single point; although not impossible.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 9:46:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The 16 major pieces of evidence supporting the Big Bang Theory are given by http://www.talkorigins.org... The article answers the questions posed that are related to the Big Bang,

The Big Bang Theory does not theorize about what happened before the Big Bang. It only deals with what happened starting with the Big Bang. Other cosmological theories treat the causes of the Big Bang, but there is no consensus on which of the cosmological theories is correct. One theory is that universes are the product of a higher dimensional space, so what existed before the Big Bang existed in higher dimensions. Another theory is that the Big Bang did not create any matter, because equal amount of positive and negative energy were created at the time of the Big Bang.

"The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow present's one modern theory of the origins of the universe.

What is the alternative to the Big Bang Theory? Is the alternative to say that it was God's magic, and then go home? The Steady State Theory was disproved by the evidence given in article cited above.
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 4:22:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 6:28:49 PM, josht wrote:
At 10/21/2014 7:36:07 AM, chui wrote:
At 10/21/2014 5:40:37 AM, josht wrote:
I dont understand why people still even take this seriously I mean I can even understand why some people believe in evolution but the big bang theory is just plain stupid. I was looking for reasons why the big bang theory is not possible and have come up with some of the following:

1. Where did the thing that exploded come from? Even if the big bang theory is true there must have been someone(God) to cause it.

2. The cosmic radiation doesnt prove the big bang theory it just doesnt disprove it.

3. Ive read somewhere that there is a huge group of distant galaxies that couldnt have formed in ordinary ways the big bang theory predicts.

4. If everything was homogenos in the beginning like the big bang theory says why do we have galaxies and stars and planets while really all matter in the universe should be spread evenly.

I am eager to see what big bang supporters come up with here.

What is your explanation for cosmic red-shift and cosmic radiation?

I am not denying that the universe is expanding. The Bible itself says that God stretched the heavens. Cosmic radiation probably has other means of forming other than the big bang theory but we dont know them yet.

If it is expanding it must have started smaller then?

Are you aware that cosmic radiation is extremely uniform. It has almost the same wavelength, temperature and intensity no matter where we look. It fits the theory that around 13.4 Billion years ago the universe cooled to 3000K, at which temperature the universe would become transparent. The universe has expanded a thousand fold since then and the wavelength of this radiation would now be about 30mm. All observation show that the radiation is within one part in 100,000 to this expected value. When observation matches theory to this level it is usually taken to be strong supporting evidence.

There may be as yet undiscovered means for this radiation to be emitted in precisely the way it was but it is not normal to explain nature in terms of what we might discover in the future.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 11:06:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 9:46:48 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
...

What is the alternative to the Big Bang Theory? Is the alternative to say that it was God's magic, and then go home?

And if the magic is not God's, then it's ok? Seems to me the option of a human-comprehensible origin-of-it-all is not on the table. The laws of nature as we know them are not adequate to explain existence. It's still the ultimate unanswerable philosophical question - why is there anything instead of nothing?

So it seems to me you can only wish to remove God from all equations if you in fact are aware of God. You can't be against nothing.
This space for rent.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 11:44:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 11:06:15 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:46:48 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
...

What is the alternative to the Big Bang Theory? Is the alternative to say that it was God's magic, and then go home?

And if the magic is not God's, then it's ok? Seems to me the option of a human-comprehensible origin-of-it-all is not on the table. The laws of nature as we know them are not adequate to explain existence. It's still the ultimate unanswerable philosophical question - why is there anything instead of nothing?

So it seems to me you can only wish to remove God from all equations if you in fact are aware of God. You can't be against nothing.

Why is there God instead of nothing.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 2:54:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 11:06:15 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:46:48 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
...

What is the alternative to the Big Bang Theory? Is the alternative to say that it was God's magic, and then go home?

And if the magic is not God's, then it's ok? Seems to me the option of a human-comprehensible origin-of-it-all is not on the table. The laws of nature as we know them are not adequate to explain existence. It's still the ultimate unanswerable philosophical question - why is there anything instead of nothing?

You seem to admit that you know nothing substantial about the Big Bang Theory and that you are unwilling to read and understand the article that explains. Yet you maintain that the Big Bang theory has problems.

The possibility that the origins are incomprehensible or can never be found is on the table, and every cosmologist knows that possibility exists. The difference is that you are eager to leap to that point, while scientists are eager to explain as much as possible in terms of natural law. You apparently did not understand that the Big Bang Theory makes no claim about what happened before the Big Bang, so you wanted to make the Big Bang Theory incomprehensible or inadequate. The problem is that there are at least sixteen major pieces of evidence that support the theory which do not fit with any other theory.

Hawking believes that the origins of the universe can be explained by comprehensible natural laws. I don't know. Hawking is very difficult to understand. For example, he solves the problem of time by saying that time is finite but unbounded, just as the surface of the earth is finite yet has no boundaries. Hmmm. If you care about the problem of origins you should read Hawking and get on board with modern cosmology.

So it seems to me you can only wish to remove God from all equations if you in fact are aware of God. You can't be against nothing.

I don't think that God can ever be definitively ruled out. From the religious viewpoint, the question is whether God acts through the mechanisms of laws of nature or whether He acts through miraculous exceptions to natural law.

Is the argument that God is too stupid to figure out how to accomplish divine intent through the mechanism of nature, so He is forced to continually intervene with miracles?
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 3:23:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 3:11:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The big bang theory is logically absurd, for the universe has nothing to expand into.

https://docs.google.com...

Yet, is it then not also absurd to propose that a god could exist outside of the universe? If someone proposes that god created the universe, they must also state that god exists (or existed) outside of it.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 3:24:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 3:23:15 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/23/2014 3:11:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The big bang theory is logically absurd, for the universe has nothing to expand into.

https://docs.google.com...

Yet, is it then not also absurd to propose that a god could exist outside of the universe? If someone proposes that god created the universe, they must also state that god exists (or existed) outside of it.

Not if God is the universe, and if the universe created itself.
SNP1
Posts: 2,407
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 3:30:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 3:24:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/23/2014 3:23:15 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/23/2014 3:11:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The big bang theory is logically absurd, for the universe has nothing to expand into.

https://docs.google.com...

Yet, is it then not also absurd to propose that a god could exist outside of the universe? If someone proposes that god created the universe, they must also state that god exists (or existed) outside of it.

Not if God is the universe, and if the universe created itself.

How can something be self-creating? I can see how something can be uncaused or eternal, but self-creating?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 3:34:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 3:30:08 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/23/2014 3:24:56 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/23/2014 3:23:15 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 10/23/2014 3:11:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The big bang theory is logically absurd, for the universe has nothing to expand into.

https://docs.google.com...

Yet, is it then not also absurd to propose that a god could exist outside of the universe? If someone proposes that god created the universe, they must also state that god exists (or existed) outside of it.

Not if God is the universe, and if the universe created itself.

How can something be self-creating? I can see how something can be uncaused or eternal, but self-creating?

What is preventing the universe from creating itself, if there is no real constraint external to the universe? The universe "selects itself" from the unbound potential which naturally exists in light of zero constraint, with the selection function identical to that which is selected.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 11:29:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 3:11:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The big bang theory is logically absurd, for the universe has nothing to expand into.

https://docs.google.com...

A logical absurdity is the result of assumptions that logically contradict. The Big Bang Theory only asserts that the known universe is expanding. What is "outside" is not theoretically observable, so it may be unknown forever, or maybe some grander cosmological theory will explain it. There is no logical contradiction in that. That the space associated with the Big Bang is expanding is observed, so there no possibility that expansion is impossible. Time is defined only when there is motion, so as far as we know there is no time outside of the expanding universe.

The basic mistake is to claim the the universe must be just like the world we observe every day, and that any theory that claims it isn't just like the world we observe every day is a logical contradiction. That's not so, and we already have counter examples. In the world we observe, an upper limit on speed and space itself being curved are "unimaginable," but relativity has proved that what we can imagine is not a logical limitation. Similarly, higher dimensions, including two-dimensional time, cannot be ruled out as logical contradictions. At one time, action through fields was unimaginable, as were wave-particle duality and the purely probabilistic events of quantum physics. Now they are all proved and part of standard physics.

One way to put it is that the universe expands into zero-energy-state vacuum by creating non-zero-energy state vacuum.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2014 11:51:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 11:29:56 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/23/2014 3:11:46 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
The big bang theory is logically absurd, for the universe has nothing to expand into.

https://docs.google.com...


A logical absurdity is the result of assumptions that logically contradict. The Big Bang Theory only asserts that the known universe is expanding. What is "outside" is not theoretically observable, so it may be unknown forever, or maybe some grander cosmological theory will explain it. There is no logical contradiction in that.

Oh, it's a contradiction alright. The universe includes the entirety of space-time by definition, which means "outside the universe" does not refer to any physically meaningful location; if such a space is sufficiently real to contain the expansion of the universe, the universe already contains it.

That the space associated with the Big Bang is expanding is observed, so there no possibility that expansion is impossible. Time is defined only when there is motion, so as far as we know there is no time outside of the expanding universe.

No empirical distinction can be made between the apparent "expansion of the universe" and the shrinkage of the universe's contents relative to it.


The basic mistake is to claim the the universe must be just like the world we observe every day, and that any theory that claims it isn't just like the world we observe every day is a logical contradiction. That's not so, and we already have counter examples. In the world we observe, an upper limit on speed and space itself being curved are "unimaginable," but relativity has proved that what we can imagine is not a logical limitation. Similarly, higher dimensions, including two-dimensional time, cannot be ruled out as logical contradictions. At one time, action through fields was unimaginable, as were wave-particle duality and the purely probabilistic events of quantum physics. Now they are all proved and part of standard physics.

One way to put it is that the universe expands into zero-energy-state vacuum by creating non-zero-energy state vacuum.

If that's the case, then "zero-energy state vacuum" is already part of the universe, and the universe is not expanding into it. Indeed, it already contains it.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 7:25:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 2:54:32 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/23/2014 11:06:15 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 10/21/2014 9:46:48 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
...

What is the alternative to the Big Bang Theory? Is the alternative to say that it was God's magic, and then go home?

And if the magic is not God's, then it's ok? Seems to me the option of a human-comprehensible origin-of-it-all is not on the table. The laws of nature as we know them are not adequate to explain existence. It's still the ultimate unanswerable philosophical question - why is there anything instead of nothing?

You seem to admit that you know nothing substantial about the Big Bang Theory and that you are unwilling to read and understand the article that explains.

WTF? I don't think you understood my post. At all. So, never mind, our heads are in entirely different places here.
This space for rent.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 12:58:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 7:25:47 AM, v3nesl wrote:
WTF? I don't think you understood my post. At all. So, never mind, our heads are in entirely different places here.

Let's return to your original post so you can point out what I didn't understand. You said,

I dont understand why people still even take this seriously I mean I can even understand why some people believe in evolution but the big bang theory is just plain stupid. I was looking for reasons why the big bang theory is not possible and have come up with some of the following:

Saying the theory is "stupid" implies that you understand the theory and that you have found objections which you are reasonably sure are valid.

1. Where did the thing that exploded come from? Even if the big bang theory is true there must have been someone(God) to cause it.

The Big Bang theory does not say anything about where it came from. You should have understood that if you understood the Theory at all. It is like evolution in that theory only addresses haw things progressed, not how they originated. Cosmologists have theories of the origins of the Big Bang, but no conclusions. Hawking has a theory of origins that does not require God.

2. The cosmic radiation doesnt prove the big bang theory it just doesnt disprove it.

The background radiation strongly favors the Big Bang over the only other significant theory of the universe, the Steady State Theory. There are fifteen other scientific observations that confirm the Big Bang Theory.

3. Ive read somewhere that there is a huge group of distant galaxies that couldnt have formed in ordinary ways the big bang theory predicts.

I've read somewhere that the Big Bang theory is valid. Does that convince you? You need to give an actual argument with a citation to get a response.

4. If everything was homogenos in the beginning like the big bang theory says why do we have galaxies and stars and planets while really all matter in the universe should be spread evenly.

One of the confirmations of the Big Bang is that in fact the matter in the universe is very evenly spread. It clumps up into objects because of gravity. Random quantum fluctuations start the process.

I am eager to see what big bang supporters come up with here.

You seem disinterested in the theory, and only interested in Creationism. Answer the question as to why God could not choose to work through natural laws.

So what did I misunderstand in your original post?
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 1:25:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/24/2014 12:58:04 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/24/2014 7:25:47 AM, v3nesl wrote:
WTF? I don't think you understood my post. At all. So, never mind, our heads are in entirely different places here.

Let's return to your original post so you can point out what I didn't understand. You said,

I dont understand why people still even take this seriously I mean I can even understand why some people believe in evolution but the big bang theory is just plain stupid. I was looking for reasons why the big bang theory is not possible and have come up with some of the following:


That's not my post. You're confusing me with somebody else. heh, you probably a giant pigeonhole where you throw all science infidels, right? Kind of funny, though I do hate that moment where I realize I might as well have posted in Farsi.
This space for rent.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2014 1:32:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/23/2014 11:51:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Oh, it's a contradiction alright. The universe includes the entirety of space-time by definition, which means "outside the universe" does not refer to any physically meaningful location; if such a space is sufficiently real to contain the expansion of the universe, the universe already contains it.

I appreciate the problem of semantics. Cosmologists do not have a single meaning of "the universe" as you believe they ought. The Big Bang is sometimes said to produce "our universe", or "universe" for short, in which is the space in which we live and are able to observe. But they also consider other universes, including parallel universes. In this contest a universe is a bubble of space and time. Religious people actually have a similar semantic problem. Some argue that for the universe to be created by God, God must exist outside the universe. But if one insists the universe is everything, then having a God outside the universe is equally absurd. If you can parse the semantics of "universe" as being "observable space-time" in the religious sense, you should be able to parse it in the scientific sense.

No empirical distinction can be made between the apparent "expansion of the universe" and the shrinkage of the universe's contents relative to it.

One empirical distinction is the creation of vacuum energy at the periphery which is apparently causing acceleration of the expansion. As objects move apart, the gravitational attraction reduces as the square of the distance, and that's observed. So if the objects and spaces are actually shrinking, the force of gravity must be shrinking in proportion. All the other forces would have to be scaled in some way to make the shrinking unobservable. For example, the strong force would have to scaled to hold atomic nuclei together.

But if its true that everything can be equally well explained by all shrinkage of the contents, then there is no reason to prefer one model over the other. All the laws of nature and the predictions deduced from observing the laws would be identical, so we shouldn't care.

If that's the case, then "zero-energy state vacuum" is already part of the universe, and the universe is not expanding into it. Indeed, it already contains it.

That's the semantic problem. The space does exist and is created. Do you accept that it is possible for time not to exist? Time is only observed when there is motion to observe. That means that time is defined by the existence of motion, and if there is no motion then there is no time. If there is no motion outside of the expanding universe, then there is no time. But if you can accept that there is no time, then you have to admit that it's possible that there is no space. Space is defined by comparison to objects. If there are no objects, then there is no space either.