It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Big Bang? More Like The Big Who Gives A #.

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Despite the sardonic title, I have a legitimate question.

What exactly is considered proof of the Big Bang happening? I have enough trouble believing anything provided to us by scientific sources as it is, but determining "The Big Bang" happened doesn't seem like something actually doable.

Any satellite/telescope nerds think they have the answer?




posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Eunuchorn

Interesting thread you have here! I would also like to see the answer.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Eunuchorn
The Universe Is expanding .
So they postulate that at one time it was all in one spot ,
They named that spot a singularity

It was neither big nor did it bang if it even happened

A better name would be the infinitelty small silence .

As sound cannot travel in a vacuum even more so in a vacuum that did not even exsist at that point



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Eunuchorn

As far as I'm aware there is no proof but there is evidence , the fact that Galaxies are moving away from each other is part of that evidence.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:49 PM
link   
As scientists looked at data coming from various telescopes which showed that all matter appears to be expanding away from each other, they surmised that if this is the case, then by reversing this motion they can establish that it appears all galaxies and cosmic formations came from a central point.

But the thing you have to keep in mind is that Inflation (AKA The Big Bang) is still only a theory. It has some evidence to back it up, of course, but it's still a theory and subject to change. Such as the change from "Big Bang" to "Inflation". They previously thought it was a massive explosion, which wasn't the case at all, but rather all matter simply "inflating" from a central point.

Whether you choose to put emotional stock on the theory is of course, up to the individual. That's the wonderful thing about science. If something came along tomorrow that disproves the big bang or inflation unequivocally, then scientists will go "Well, guess we were wrong about that!"



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   
The space between galaxies is stretching so if that movement is reversed there should be a single point of origin. That's about all we have. I've always wondered where earth is in relation to the point of origin, if it even existed. Or if we even exist.

edit on 6-1-2015 by newWorldSamurai because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
As scientists looked at data coming from various telescopes which showed that all matter appears to be expanding away from each other, they surmised that if this is the case, then by reversing this motion they can establish that it appears all galaxies and cosmic formations came from a central point.

But the thing you have to keep in mind is that Inflation (AKA The Big Bang) is still only a theory. It has some evidence to back it up, of course, but it's still a theory and subject to change. Such as the change from "Big Bang" to "Inflation". They previously thought it was a massive explosion, which wasn't the case at all, but rather all matter simply "inflating" from a central point.

Whether you choose to put emotional stock on the theory is of course, up to the individual. That's the wonderful thing about science. If something came along tomorrow that disproves the big bang or inflation unequivocally, then scientists will go "Well, guess we were wrong about that!"


The other data is that science can estimate WHEN it happened. I can't speak for the accuracy of the measurement, but the claims are that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

Now here's a problem with that...

What if something else pre-dated the big bang, but happened 14 billion light years away in the opposite direction?

We couldn't even observe it because the light energy from that event hasn't reached us.

There are MANY observational limitations and assumptions. All we can say is the things we can measure are consistent with them all originating from the same spot 13.8 billion years ago. It could be that our universe is nothing but a fart from a 100 billion year old giant. Who knows?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I see the universe as a giant lung !
Just saying



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
As scientists looked at data coming from various telescopes which showed that all matter appears to be expanding away from each other, they surmised that if this is the case, then by reversing this motion they can establish that it appears all galaxies and cosmic formations came from a central point.

But the thing you have to keep in mind is that Inflation (AKA The Big Bang) is still only a theory. It has some evidence to back it up, of course, but it's still a theory and subject to change. Such as the change from "Big Bang" to "Inflation". They previously thought it was a massive explosion, which wasn't the case at all, but rather all matter simply "inflating" from a central point.

Whether you choose to put emotional stock on the theory is of course, up to the individual. That's the wonderful thing about science. If something came along tomorrow that disproves the big bang or inflation unequivocally, then scientists will go "Well, guess we were wrong about that!"


The other data is that science can estimate WHEN it happened. I can't speak for the accuracy of the measurement, but the claims are that the universe is 13.8 billion years old.

Now here's a problem with that...

What if something else pre-dated the big bang, but happened 14 billion light years away in the opposite direction?

We couldn't even observe it because the light energy from that event hasn't reached us.

There are MANY observational limitations and assumptions. All we can say is the things we can measure are consistent with them all originating from the same spot 13.8 billion years ago. It could be that our universe is nothing but a fart from a 100 billion year old giant. Who knows?
Yup, some scientists speculate that our Universe could hundreds of billions of years old and we'd never have any way to know it, because our observational bubble of the universe is limited by the speed of light.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ecossiepossie

We can use the same science in the cigarette I just had. It is true that I lit it, and we can observe the lit part, or cherry, moving closer to the filter. We can even determent an average speed at which the cigarette is burning. But that is where science stops. Anything beyond that is based on assumptions and belief.

We know that the universe in expanding, but we assume that it all came from one singularity. The only scientific proof we have is that it is expanding, but the science stops there, in my opinion.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Eunuchorn

Well here is a good place to learn what the evidence of the Big Bang is although you may not like it because it lists scientific reasons which as you said you have trouble believing anything provided by scientific sources.

Unfortunately I don't know of any evidence outside of science for the theory.

If there was proof I think it would be called something other than theory however when something is called a scientific theory and named such there is vast amounts of evidence for it like germ theory, cell theory, and the theory of gravity. Remaining a theory basically means they are not done describing and refining the descriptions of the mechanisms of how it works. So you can say it is a fact however we can't explain every aspect of it so it remains a scientific theory.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Okay, the universe is expanding from one point, so how do galaxies manage to bash into each other? the milky way is due to crash into Andromeda in two and a half billion years time, how is that?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: pikestaff

The same reason stars and planets are able to form. Through Gravity. While the force of the expanding universe (Something Scientists have termed "dark energy") is strong, Gravity can overcome it if two bodies are close enough.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Minute Physics is a channel on YouTube that produce fairly short (average 5 minutes or so) videos that quickly detail many different subjects concerning physics. Very fun to watch.




posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: InfinityandBeyond
Minute Physics is a channel on YouTube that produce fairly short (average 5 minutes or so) videos that quickly detail many different subjects concerning physics. Very fun to watch.

Totally off topic but I absolutely adore minute physics. I want to have internet babies with Minute Physics.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I don't like the way you two are talking. It is making me feel rather insignificant! lol



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: superman2012
I don't like the way you two are talking. It is making me feel rather insignificant! lol
To be fair, in the enormous size and scope of the universe, we humans don't even register as specks in the grand scheme of things. All the wars we fight, all the strife we experience, all the joy shared by us, every single thought and action we have produced have to date, have had about as much impact on the universe as the shifting of an individual electron within your body.
edit on 6-1-2015 by ScientificRailgun because: seriously grammar, stop it.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

What you wrote made me think of this video. I would have loved to meet this man.




posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eunuchorn
Despite the sardonic title, I have a legitimate question.

What exactly is considered proof of the Big Bang happening? I have enough trouble believing anything provided to us by scientific sources as it is, but determining "The Big Bang" happened doesn't seem like something actually doable.

Any satellite/telescope nerds think they have the answer?



Wollack, E. J. (10 December 2010). "Cosmology: The Study of the Universe". Universe 101: Big Bang Theory. NASA. Archived from the original on 14 May 2011. Retrieved 27 April 2011. The second section discusses the classic tests of the Big Bang theory that make it so compelling as the likely valid description of our universe.


and the exact paper designated by the above reference.

pubs.sciepub.com...


edit on 6-1-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Eunuchorn

As far as I'm aware there is no proof but there is evidence , the fact that Galaxies are moving away from each other is part of that evidence.


Exactly, no one has ever said the big bang is a proven fact, its called the big bang THEORY. That's how science works, of do you (the OP) have a better aproach? Such as beleiving words in some fantasy book perhaps?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join