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.

 

Unexplained gaps in the big bang theory

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Baa


edit on 16/4/15 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 11:23 PM
link   
baa



edit on 16/4/15 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Elementalist

Are the gaps big enough for God to hide in?

If not, you can shrink Him down a bit more. Bible-believing 'Christians' have already shrunk Him from infinity to the size of a book, though, so further compression may be difficult.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 02:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Elementalist
The very first flaw I have with this theory; is the fact that it would assume nature came after spontaneous production.. then nature goes on to create things from nothing, for no reason.



The big bang hypothesis originated from a Christian priest. Scientific theories usually don't explain the meaning or reason. They explain the mechanism. It's wrong of you to assume this theory imply there is no reason nor meaning. It's just not covered by the theory.


Your initial assumption is false.


Also the big bang hypothesis only describe an initial expansion of the universe. It doesn't describe the hypothetical singularity before, and doesn't describe what caused the expansion.

Basically it simply postulates the universe expanded quickly in the past, that's it.

Any other conclusion from this is you speculating.
edit on 17-4-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Elementalist
Darkness creates.


Darkness doesn't create. Darkness is the receptacle for creation, the blank page.

It's not by chance that the alchemical symbol for water/darkness/feminity is the cup.

The cup alone is empty. The cup needs to be filled thanks to its symbolic counterpart, the sword.



Darkness isn't a "force" so it cannot create. Darkness is the emptiness that allows for the creative force to work, it's not the creative force itself.
edit on 17-4-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Elementalist
Though just a theory, still does not explain much of what is within the universe and how things "work" inside of it.


The Big Bang theory is not an all-encompassing theory covering everything. It is a theory covering the first phases through to where we are now - the expanding universe. The detail of all both this is highly complex and beyond my small brain to comprehend, but many do understand, or can hypothesise the events and the physics behind it all.

However, for the layman, the evidence of the expanding universe is for us to observe through telescopes. Therefore, whether we understand the physics, or not, the fact that the universe is expanding from a single point is incontrovertible.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: gravitized
The big bang theory is no longer a theory:

No Big Bang?



This article only claims there (maybe) was no singularity. The Big Bang hypothesis is mainly about the expansion, not the singularity.

The Big Bang expansion model is still valid and even depicted in the picture of the article you quoted. Misleading dramatic title (as often with scientific vulgarization papers).

The "Big Bang" is the expansion phase, not the singularity.
edit on 17-4-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi
Therefore, whether we understand the physics, or not, the fact that the universe is expanding from a single point is incontrovertible.


This is another common mistake.

First the "single point" idea is based on the idea of "singularity". The singularity is what happens when you try to reverse time during the expansion. The maths behind this shows that IF you reverse the expansion you hit a point where the formulas don't work anymore. So all the Big Bang theory says in that regard is that, with our current physical models, we hit a wall and can't describe anything BEFORE the expansion.


Secondly, the idea the universe was a point expanding into a sphere is also wrong. Only the OBSERVABLE universe is. For all we know the universe may be infinite, and then an "infinite starting point" wouldn't really make any sense, would it?



It's sad that these important and still quite simple concepts are almost always misunderstood, especially on a forum like here trying to deny ignorance.
edit on 17-4-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman
This is another common mistake.
First the "single point" idea is based on the idea of "singularity". The singularity is what happens when you try to reverse time during the expansion. The maths behind this shows that IF you reverse the expansion you hit a point where the formulas don't work anymore. So all the Big Bang theory says in that regard is that, with our current physical models, we hit a wall and can't describe anything BEFORE the expansion.


Common mistake?! Just because the physics behind a singularity is beyond compression (at the moment) and has not been fully explained does not mean that it is not a safe theory.

Also, the Big Bang theory does not provide theory as to "what came before". The theory starts with the start. So, just because the BBT does not include things you think it should, does not compromises it.
edit on 17/4/2015 by paraphi because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 03:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Elementalist

There are other theories (hypothesis) about the creation of the universe, the latest is a quantum equation that predicts the universe has always existed and will always exist, which makes sense to me (phys.org...).

The Big bang didn't create life directly. The big bang created the right ingredients from its explosion: hydrogen, lithium and helium. Stars were formed from those ingredients and when they themselves exploded they fused those elements into other heavier elements. With the right conditions atoms can combine and make molecules..... then, on our little planet, evolution took place and those molecules formed aminoacids, then came proteins and you end up having us. This is how I understand it with my humble mind.




posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 04:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: JUhrman
This is another common mistake.
First the "single point" idea is based on the idea of "singularity". The singularity is what happens when you try to reverse time during the expansion. The maths behind this shows that IF you reverse the expansion you hit a point where the formulas don't work anymore. So all the Big Bang theory says in that regard is that, with our current physical models, we hit a wall and can't describe anything BEFORE the expansion.


Common mistake?! Just because the physics behind a singularity is beyond compression (at the moment) and has not been fully explained does not mean that it is not a safe theory.

Also, the Big Bang theory does not provide theory as to "what came before". The theory starts with the start. So, just because the BBT does not include things you think it should, does not compromises it.


You don't get it. I have no issue with the speculation regarding a singularity.

I'm saying the singularity is not a "single point". That a vulgarization to help common people understanding the principle. Like when we say that electrons "orbit" around the nucleus. It's for illustration purpose only. It's not literally what is described.

The Big Bang theory never described the universe starting as a "single point". That's the popular belief.


And regarding "what came before" you say exactly the same as my post you quoted.

the BBT only decribe an expansion. Not the "initial spark", not the "singularity", not what came before. All these are speculations outside of the scope of the BBT.
edit on 17-4-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 04:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman
You don't get it. I have no issue with the speculation regarding a singularity.
I'm saying the singularity is not a "single point". That a vulgarization to help common people understanding the principle.


You need to be less patronising. In deep theoretical physics we are all “common people” unless you are a professor in the subject.

What I am saying, and what is supported by the narrative from the scientific community (which I read as a layman), is that the nature and understanding of what a singularity is has not been fully elaborated and expressed. I am sure that there are conflicting ideas of what the singularity was/is, but no consensus.

In summary. It is not just the “common people”, it is everyone, as humanity has not yet been able to articulate what the singularity was/is. Oh, unless you can, of course. Feel free to let me know when you are publishing in the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, or Nature.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Actually I patiently and clearly explained where your mistake lies. If you take this personally and as me patronizing it's not my problem. I know it's never easy to admit we have been wrong, especially when the ego is too big. Yet when we are told where our mistake lies, we can still correct ourselves.

You said this:


originally posted by: paraphi
the fact that the universe is expanding from a single point is incontrovertible.


I'm saying it's incorrect. All that is incontrovertible is the expansion.

How it started is unknown. And even given the possible theories, none of them includes the WHOLE universe expanding from "a single point".


End of story



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 04:50 AM
link   
Are you guys ok? It seems the discussion here on Big Bang Theory is very personal in some ways. Easy guys.
Whats important is the "Now" as it will be the precedent of the "Future". Future is unsure though for now or most likely for some none for some, could be something to look forward to. So enjoy the now and get over the past.
Smile.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 05:26 AM
link   
During star watch. ..The main professor helped tried to explain to concept of the big bang and the singularity. Every thing I have read so far is far from the general theory. The notion that the singularity originated in a specific location and that we can find that original location based on reversing the expansion was explained as incorrect by the BBCs main man. He helped us visualise it by saying that the universe started from every point in time and space...that it started here, Jupiter, andromeda and outside our observable universe all at the same time...that every possible point in time and space was the origin. I have noticed that no one else believes/heard of it but it seemed general consensus between scientists.

In terms of the original post linking life with the BBT is strange.... gets the debating juices going but in terms of someone being able to steer you in the right direction or help combine scattered theories, unfortunately it won't happen. Good thread though



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: rossacus

Exactly. That was the meaning of my posts. Not to be patronizing but to explain this popular belief in a "starting point" is just that, misunderstanding and popular belief propagated each time someone incorrectly state it.


To go back to topic, the BBT only states the universe first expanded rapidly. Nothing more, nothing else.

There is no concept of purpose, no concept of cause, no concept of organizing principle. All that is left to other theories and the belief of the reader. As such, the BBT doesn't even disprove a creative force you could call God. That's why a priest could come up with such a theory

In that light I don't really understand the questions in the OP. They only illustrate common misconceptions about the Big Bang[


It's always a dead-end to mix philosophical questions (why?) with scientific questions (how?). Science doesn't deal with meaning or purpose. There is nothing in the Big Bang theory or even Darwinism that says there cannot be an organizing force in the universe we could call God or whatever.

These theories only disprove religious fundamentalism and literalism, which are perversions of religion anyway. There is no contradiction between science explaining the laws of the universe and religions/spiritualities/philosophies trying to explain the meaning or purpose of the universe. There are tons of religious scientists. It's only in the US that some people feel like Darwinism or the Big Bang is against religious concepts because in the US Christian fundamentalism is strong, and fundamentalism cannot survive the scientific discoveries.

And it's a good thing because all fundamentalisms are bad anyway.
edit on 17-4-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman
Well put. Steven hawkings famously reversed a colleagues black hole theory to say that all matter originated from a singularity like how a black hole "sucks" the matter/light (basically where it all goes)...However this promotes more questions and the concept of the universe being timeless. He had dedicated his life to finding a link between macro and micro and unfortunately will never find the link in his lifetime



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: rossacus

I'm pretty sure that even "time" starts to behave unpredictably in a singularity, so whether or not the universe is "eternal" becomes also a trivial question.

There cannot be a "before" if time doesn't work normally in the first place. We could even imagine a paradox where the Big Bang is actually caused by an event that has yet to happen in the future.

When we reach the shores of a singularity, we only have our imagination to try to picture what is taking place


I like too to explore these concepts unfortunately there is great chance we will never have answers about them. Just like we will never be able to see anything from beyond the observable universe.
edit on 17-4-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Elementalist
The big bang theory, a human concept to explain; creation's expansion, how life came to be.

Though just a theory, still does not explain much of what is within the universe and how things "work" inside of it.


Just a theory huh? Well we are already off to a poor start here... But let's continue.


For those who have digressed to put faith in such a theory, an unknown and spontaneous bang (of what forces?), producing creation, I make this thread for those, to kindly fill in the questions I have about this simple and unexplainable theory.


"Digressed to put faith in such a theory"? Wow! Rhetoric much? If you are going to be saying condescending crap like that, why should I educate you on how the BB actually works in the first place? You are off to a really bad start.


So let's get crackin' this debate shall we?

The very first flaw I have with this theory; is the fact that it would assume nature came after spontaneous production.. then nature goes on to create things from nothing, for no reason.

How and Why is nature all of a sudden creating things; and what faculty would nature have that allows it to create miraculously flawless geography, designs, and numerical consistencies?


This has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory. If you want answers to these questions, look up Star Formation theory, Abiogenesis, and Evolutionary theory. Though the simple answer to your question is the 4 fundamental forces of physics make all this possible.


In human logic, it would take quite a large brain to process all this information/knowledge, especially coming from nothing.


Coming from nothing? There is no "coming from nothing" in the Big Bang. That is a lie pushed by BB deniers trying to discredit it. In other words a straw man.


How would nature get the information to be so flawless in sciences, mathematics, geometry down to the MICRO and up to the MACRO scale?
Where is the knowledge and information coming from, if from nothing at all... surely nature doesn't think like the things it created, right?


What is flawless about science? Do you realize that many mathematical models are slightly flawed because they don't represent reality accurately? For instance, planets don't orbit stars in perfect circles. They are ellipses, and even those ellipses vary in size and shape (Earth has a near circular orbit while comets have a HIGHLY elliptical orbit).


Secondly; how does nothing create everything is ONE side of this debate.The other side is; how did nature (which apparently came from nothing) create things that can think on their own.
Said creations can think about anything and everything. Things that exist and things that don't our brain/mind can create things (mentally) that don't even exist within the universe.


It doesn't. There is no part of the Big Bang Theory that says that something came from nothing.


How did nothing give the ability to THINK of anything or everything, just out of prima materia?


This is a flawed question; not to mention it is a question for evolutionary theory as well.


Thirdly; why did nature decide to create bodies, that think and feel, but also have TWO counter parts?
If nothing (represented by 0) created everything (represented by 1), why would it then create a counter part (like eve from Adams rib story) for further reproduction of that created body (represented by 1+1=2)?


The hell is this question? This is some weird straw man you got going on here.


Now we have to back up again and go for the first point again; how is nature intelligent and creating flawless creations from primal material? Where is the information coming from to create TWO counterparts?


Uh... Science doesn't say that nature is intelligent... And what is this two counterpart thing? Not everything has a male and female form. Though evolution of gender is a question for evolutionary theory.


With that in mind, and everything coming from one thing, why would nature not make self replicating bodies like divided itself or something? Simply efficient and conservative, right?


It did... The first life on this planet was singular celled and reproduced by dividing in half... Then life evolved from there.


It would seem unnecessary to create counter parts of original creations, nature created, following the big bang theory.


This makes no sense.


Fourthly; this is the last point I have to bring up for denying the big bang. The fact that nature created bodies that can now think and be self aware and externally aware, they can feel emotions.


This is a question for evolutionary theory.


The thoughts that the created body has, change how that body feels and goes about its "life". Thoughts, that come only when the body awareness exercises thought, actually changes its emotions and perspective of the external universe it was unwillingly born into.

My main points against the Big Bang theory; how did nature get its program to create flawless designs, mathematics, sciences, chemical reactions, biological systems and the REASON TO CREATE in the first place?

Also how did nature go on to create things that now think for themselves, and feel emotions (where and why did emotions come from?), as well as are self aware creations?

Why did nature create two counter parts that must have one and the other to reproduce? If it was spontaneous with no consciousness (nature's), how did it create two sides that biological, chemically and systemically fit flawlessly together to reproduce? Doesn't seem random.

Seems like a bit much for random nothingness to go out and do all this and now we live self aware experiences for a short time trying to understand why nature did what it did/does.

For those who hold faith of big bang, explain some of these points in your POV please, this is an honest debate to further educate myself how others understand creation and life.

All comments and questions are welcome, don't let emotion lead your partake within this light debate.

Play nice , thanks for reading


Your entire problem with the Big Bang theory stems from a strawman you created about it. If you TRULY are looking for answers for these questions then you should go relearn what the BBT actually says otherwise this debate is flawed from the get go.



posted on Apr, 17 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Elementalist


The big bang theory, a human concept to explain; creation's expansion, how life came to be.


There is your first mistake: assuming that "creation," as you call it is expanding, and that the current cosmological model popularly known as the "Big Bang Theory" attempts to explain how life came to be. The first mistake is due to a confusion between the interpretation of observations and knowledge, the second is a misunderstanding deliberately promulgated by Theists.


Though just a theory, still does not explain much of what is within the universe and how things "work" inside of it.


Again, you betray your ignorance of the scientific method, using "theory" in a sense that implies it has no observational support, merely speculation. It is not speculation, it is the result of meticulous mathematics. Also, the theory of the origin of the universe does not need to to explain how everything in the universe "works,"it only needs to be congruent with what is actually observed.


For those who have digressed to put faith in such a theory,


Faith is for religion, not science. If observations pile up that falsify the current paradigm, it will be discarded this has happened many times in the past, and will likely happen many more times in the future. Only False Religion believes that it can explain everything perfectly, and that its teachings are eternal. (Valid Religions understand that they are concerned with the ethical and psychological realms, not the physical.)


an unknown and spontaneous bang (of what forces?), producing creation, I make this thread for those, to kindly fill in the questions I have about this simple and unexplainable theory.


Unfortunately, the language used to describe modern cosmology in popular terms does it a disservice. There was no "bang," there was no "Nothing" before it. For those with enough mathematical savvy, I have described the moment of the universe's creation, which is what we call the point where our mathematical modeling of our observations break down, as a Klein Bottle being turned inside out.


So let's get crackin' this debate shall we?


Funny... I could have sworn you said you wanted to ask some questions. Now you sound like you want to force your own answers on them.


The very first flaw I have with this theory; is the fact that it would assume nature came after spontaneous production.. then nature goes on to create things from nothing, for no reason.


There is no Nature outside of the Universe, and the Universe exists entirely in Nature. Also, there is no Nothing.


How and Why is nature all of a sudden creating things; and what faculty would nature have that allows it to create miraculously flawless geography, designs, and numerical consistencies?


Nature is not creating things. The Universe follows a random path, governed by an evolving set of parameters. These form patterns. Sometimes these patterns develop something called "awareness" through a property known as "emergence." Geography does not know it is perfect; if it favors the evolution of biological organisms, these organisms will thrive. If they develop an emergent consciousness, they might deem this geography "perfect," although neither that geography nor the physical constraints that shaped it had any intention of creating this perfect environment.


In human logic, it would take quite a large brain to process all this information/knowledge, especially coming from nothing.


No human brain can process all the information in the universe. There is a theory that the universe itself is information. In any case, there is no need to process the information at all; it is what it is. Once again, there is no "Nothing."


How would nature get the information to be so flawless in sciences, mathematics, geometry down to the MICRO and up to the MACRO scale?


Nature exerts no effort to create information. Your use of the word "flawless" is odd; it implies that there should be a perfect model that all information should aspire to. Simply, whatever is, is. Naturally, then, it is flawless, even when a limited human mind might judge it wrong... or even evil.


Where is the knowledge and information coming from, if from nothing at all... surely nature doesn't think like the things it created, right?


Nature does not think. As I have hinted, there is a trend to consider the physical universe as the information itself.

I am up against my character limit for this post, but I feel that you need to start defining your terms much more rigorously if you wish to have a serious discussion on this topic.
edit on 17-4-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-4-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join