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: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Toadmund

Infinity allows for just about any thought you can have. There is a theory that pi contains every possible number sequence and therefore everything. It isn't proven yet, but it certainly makes you think.

There are plenty of cool things to think and ponder about without worrying about if your favorite hypothesis is true or not. Multiverse theory could be wrong, but that still leaves TONS of awesome things to look at, study, and ponder within our own universe. You can start by thinking about what happens inside black holes. They may be wormholes to other parts of the universe (or other universes if multiverses are true).




posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

I understood what you wrote and wasn't trying to insinuate that you believed that the book on any theory is closed. If it appeared that way, I apologize. Just trying to show that you weren't alone in your beliefs and anyone who DIDN'T think as you did was foolish.
edit on 8-1-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: doorhandle
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?


It's called a theory yes, but scientific theories are based on verified fact. The "it's just a theory" excuse is soooooo old. Can we all please stop using it? This thread is littered with that and that isn't how science works. Theories in science are backed by substantial evidence. Untested guesses are called hypotheses. For Big bang, redshift is a big piece of evidence as well as the fact that we can observe the background radiation leftover from it.


edit on 8-1-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: AthlonSavage

Yes but arent there huge sections entirely devoid of any matter?
At the time of the alleged "big bang", as the theory goes, all matter was condensed in one locstion, so that dust you speak of would not be there to carry the sound. Perhaps there was a sound within the ball of matter itself though! But not travelling outward from the matter itself...


Nobody's saying that we can hear the big bang sound. They were saying that sound can indeed travel through space. We don't know that the vaccuum didn't exist. That would be a guess, since we can't measure back any further than just after the expansion started.

I'm not saying this is your perspective, but I don't get why religious folks deny the big bang. If they believe god is all powerful and made the universe, wouldn't it make sense to start in a giant dispersion of matter and energy all over the universe?


edit on 8-1-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: r0xor
What caused the laws of physics to form as we know them?

Why does everything work the way it does; speed, gravity, light, etc?

I ask assuming there was a time before everything 'expanded' (a big bang), before certain elements had ever formed and before certain laws of physics ever had a chance of expressing themselves.

To go further, what caused life forms to evolve the way that they have, into the shapes and colors and other attributes etc?

Who decides all this stuff?

Is it just a non-aware logical expression where intelligent designs naturally occur?

If so, what do you call that?


You are inserting the who. Why does anybody have to decide that stuff? Why can't that just be the way the universe is and the way we measure it's properties. Why it works the way it does is irrelevant in science. Science wants to figure out HOW it works the way it does. Just because we can measure universal forces, doesn't mean that there must be a magical creature to set it up. You are assuming these things are intelligently designed, but there is absolutely no evidence for that viewpoint.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Eunuchorn
Nevermind.


edit on 1/8/2015 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: doorhandle
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?


It's called a theory yes, but scientific theories are based on verified fact. The "it's just a theory" excuse is soooooo old. Can we all please stop using it? This thread is littered with that and that isn't how science works. Theories in science are backed by substantial evidence. Untested guesses are called hypotheses. For Big bang, redshift is a big piece of evidence as well as the fact that we can observe the background radiation leftover from it.

True enough, but for all our evidence and "facts". Science is still about probabilities, not proof. So a theory is still a theory, no matter how much evidence we have, until the probabilities are so high as to make it a given. And very little at this point is a given.
edit on 1/8/2015 by Klassified because: redaction



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Eunuchorn

i am with you.
Pics or it did not happen!



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: doorhandle

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?




It's called a theory yes, but scientific theories are based on verified fact. The "it's just a theory" excuse is soooooo old. Can we all please stop using it? This thread is littered with that and that isn't how science works. Theories in science are backed by substantial evidence. Untested guesses are called hypotheses. For Big bang, redshift is a big piece of evidence as well as the fact that we can observe the background radiation leftover from it.




in the religion of science verified facts often change according to what new theory is put forth. So far that religion has not proven much of the big questions beyond mind minipulation of the masses. They get pissed because not everyone believes their theories 100%



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
in the religion of science verified facts often change according to what new theory is put forth. So far that religion has not proven much of the big questions beyond mind minipulation of the masses. They get pissed because not everyone believes their theories 100%


In the religion of religion facts take a back seat to complete guesses put forth under the guise of "faith". So far religion gets proven wrong pretty much every time a new scientific idea is given credence. They get pissed because more and more people are waking up to the deception and are tired of being told what to believe and would rather search out the answers on their own.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick


in the religion of science verified facts often change according to what new theory is put forth.


science is more than happy to admit when its wrong, provided sufficient evidence has been brought forth. but that requires, oddly enough, sufficient evidence. science isnt about walking in and saying this is what we want the evidence to say. look up the scientific method.
edit on 8-1-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-1-2015 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I understand that and have not said that is not the case.

However those scientific methods all rely on things that are not 100% fact but are widely accepted as truth even though that does not fit the definition of truth.

Assumptions stacked on top of assumptions based on acceptence.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

In many religions it is understood that everything is based on faith and acceptance.
Science relies on getting everyone to accept a belief is a fact just as other religions do.
The difference is science accepts many proofs because they are repeated.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: 3n19m470
a reply to: AthlonSavage

Yes but arent there huge sections entirely devoid of any matter?
At the time of the alleged "big bang", as the theory goes, all matter was condensed in one locstion, so that dust you speak of would not be there to carry the sound. Perhaps there was a sound within the ball of matter itself though! But not travelling outward from the matter itself...


Nobody's saying that we can hear the big bang sound. They were saying that sound can indeed travel through space. We don't know that the vaccuum didn't exist. That would be a guess, since we can't measure back any further than just after the expansion started.

I'm not saying this is your perspective, but I don't get why religious folks deny the big bang. If they believe god is all powerful and made the universe, wouldn't it make sense to start in a giant dispersion of matter and energy all over the universe?



...which is a problem for science and religion, re: Big Bang/Creationism -  both assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is...both theories fraught with ridiculousness (in essence) due to this assumption, wrapping (on the one hand) 'what we can measure' to a singularity (that cannot explain how that singularity could appear from nothing)...the other - monocled on the assumption that we are so important that we are THE only lifeform locale in this vast thing, and worthy/unworthy of a creators ministrations...both are wrong to varying degrees...

Å99



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Assumptions stacked on top of assumptions based on acceptence.


You just summed up every major religion. Though you did a bad job of summing up science here since you forgot all the evidence that scientific theories are built upon.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: deadeyedick




in the religion of science verified facts often change according to what new theory is put forth.




science is more than happy to admit when its wrong, provided sufficient evidence has been brought forth. but that requires, oddly enough, sufficient evidence. science isnt about walking in and saying this is what we want the evidence to say. look up the scientific method.


They often have to admit being wrong because of the assumption of beliefs as facts in the first place.

Religions however do not have to do that because of the admittance of the need for faith to believe as fact.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Krazysh0t

In many religions it is understood that everything is based on faith and acceptance.
Science relies on getting everyone to accept a belief is a fact just as other religions do.


No it doesn't. Science relies on putting out the evidence and people putting forth predictions (theories) based on that evidence to help predict future events given past evidence. It doesn't matter if you believe those predictions or not. The predictions stand on their own based on the acquired evidence. Those predictions are also subject to change if new evidence surfaces that paints a different prediction. Though that new prediction must also align with the old evidence since it is still valid.


The difference is science accepts many proofs because they are repeated.


Again, this is religion. Religion just repeats things over and over again until people accept them. Science doesn't give a hoot whether you believe it or not.
edit on 8-1-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
My goal is not to degrade science or destroy it but to accept the reality of it.

The stance science has taken of looking down on everyone who does not particapate in it needs to be adressed by science itself.

In other words when this first began in calling science a religion it was clear that scientist took that as an insult.

That does not mean it was an insult but that the pov of those believers had them thinking it was an insult to be on equal ground as other religions.

Perhaps greatest of all is that the majority of deaths in all wars can be credited too science and so called inventions.



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

lol
predictions



posted on Jan, 8 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

What? At its core that is what science does. It makes predictions about future events based on past evidence. Everything about science is an educated guess. HOWEVER the educated part of that guess gets more and more educated as we go along. Because of the inherent nature of making predictions though, one can turn out to be wrong. Luckily when a prediction turns out to be wrong, we can look at why that happened and adjust future predictions accordingly.

When religious predictions turn out to be wrong, religious types just rationalize away the inaccuracy or pretend like it didn't happen.







 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join