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.

 

Why the Big Bang couldnt have ever happened

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bicnarok
"do the math do the work" ha ha

the scientists should start doing that instead of making things up as they go along.

" things appear to be moving away from each other, that means there must have been a big bang" hasnt got sod all to do with maths. And if you insist in using math then you have to take EVERYTHING into consideration including things which may have happened before the Humand race was even here.


Maybe the universe isnt moving apart, but our way of measuring these things is flawed or effected by unknown things happening in the universe. The Dark Matter (non light reflecting or ommiting matter which for obvious reason cannot be see or measured) may have something to do with it.


Ok, what else should they take into consideration then? Please be specific. I want to know what it is that you know, and I do not.

Tell me also, how they are able to measure distance, travelling direction, and speed. How did they arive at these methods? You obviously are much smarter than all of the scientists on earth. You are also cleary more intelligent than me. I would love to learn from your wisdom. Teach me how it is that Relativity came about. What math and logical thought processes came about that gave us our revolutionized interpretation of gravity. Tell me what school you are a professor in advanced physics at. How long have you worked there?

Bic, you have no idea what you are talking about.




posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bicnarok
Natural selection, that is," a dark Butterfly will become more common than a white one in a dark forest" happens, its been proven. This is "survival of the fittest".


No, that is not natural selection at all.


The part of evolution which is a load of bollox is the "oh I dont like being in the sea anymore I think Ill change into something else now" thing.


This is the same type of analogy you just made with the butterfly and agree'd with. Let me fill you in on natural selection. Basically, an offspring is born with some mutation. It happens everyday in nature. If this mutation benifits the offspring, it is carried through its genes and passed on untill most of the population of that species carries the same mutation as well.

If the mutation does not benifit the offspring, it is not as productive, and not as likely to reproduce. No reproduction equals no passing on of the bad mutant genes.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

now, LOL, in regaurds to all that info on background radiation...
whew what a read!
now those are some fancy words so it takes some Very Close inspection to figure out even the first sentance much less the terminology that is in it...


Im sorry if you had a problem comprehending what the articles were talking about, but the evidence was mentioned in EVERY article I gave a link to. Thats why I picked them. Go back and reread them. If you dont understand something, then research it. its best if you find out the answers on your own since you obviously dont want any sincere input about your theory



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kidfinger
Muzzelflash,

A very thoughtful post. However, I have a small problem with your thinking.


And No conclusive evidence of Big Bangs.


I hate to be the one to burst your theory, but there IS evidence of the big bang. When the big bang occoured, the initial explosion left an imprint of sorts around our entire universe. This imprint is in the form of background radiation and was discoverd some years ago. It was discovered using a radio telescope. There is actually a funny tidbit that goes along with this. I cant remember the names of the two gentelmen who discovered this background radiation, but when they were observing this phenom, they originally concluded that bird poop on the recieving dish was causeing the effect they were witnessing. The bird poo was cleaned up, but the phenom was still there.

So yes, there is evidence that supports the Big Bang.

I recall reading up on this, it turns out that the fuzz u see on the Television is the radio wave from the Big Bang! ill try to find a link!



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Mussleflash you said that becaus ewe can see 6-8 billion light years in every direction this means that we are the center of the universe, whicih is wrong.

1. Since we dont know exactly how big the universe or where we are located we may be the center, although we most likely arents.

2 Maybe our telescopes just cant pick up light from any further away.

3. 6-8 BLY implies a range of distances therefore you just contridicted yourself.

I ahve proof against the big crunch, the fact the universe is spreading at an increasiing speed. Then you said well if galaxies all galxies are moving away from us doesn't that make us the center. NO!!! As the universe expands it would take everything inside of it with it, also the would be more just dark space of nothing more than dust created as the univverse expands. Like if you had a balloon filled with sand representing the galaxies. and you blew into it making the balloon expand. there would be more air, representing the large amounts of dark space in the universe, to come between the sand particles. sinnce all the universes wouldn't be expanding in one diection there would be collisions of galxies. Also possibley due to the large gravitational pull of the the stars inside galaxie if two galaxies were to come close to eachother.

My personal theory about the expansion of the universe. The fact that the universe is expanding implies that there is an ever changing boreder to that expansion. On the other side of this border would be nothing. thus creating a vacum. The universe may never stop expanding because it is follwoing one of the laws of nature and trying to fill this empty space would extend endlessly.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   
ok honestly read the frickin thread before you go off making wild assumptions

when i said "we are the center of the universe" i was being SARCASTIC LOL
jeez i even said that on page one !!! but since you didnt read that ill just repeat it again for you
i was making fun of the anthropocentric view of earth

and seapeople
your avoiding the question and just barraging me with questions which have no basis in the thread

oh so you think asking me all these questions makes a point? dude i dont have to go off explaining every little fact of physics to make a point, but since you dont think outside the box i cant help that lol

so you actually think if i wrote 50,000 pages worth of information on this Thread that it would make things more clear to you??

Why dont you go look up that stuff?? its all over the internet, and theres not a single reason why i should have to explain any of it to you

go to school ! i am not your physics teacher, go read a book or something and it will answer all your questions

now i do understand that these questions have nothing to do with my posts, because you plainly took offense to me saying "the big bang never happened" it may hurt your feelings that i used my education different than yours but im sorry i have a right to think what i want

those questions you ask are just your simple way of avoiding the question i posed; because you never addressed the inconsistancys you just rattled off all the facts i failed to mention , in your opinion
but those particular methods you suggest are so concrete are probably fallible too

YES im sorry humans arent perfect omnipitant beings like you think they are

and this isnt a thread about evolution so lets keep on the Subject

plus to you who take my comment on how "fancy those words are" that i "Supposedly didnt understand it " or that i "couldnt possibly understand it" just shut up dude lol
yes after i read it clearly i do feel i grasped the point of the article
if you want to INSULT people and TAKE THEIR COMMENTS OUT OF CONTEXT than go ahead

but im laughing Right now because not one of you NAYSAYERS have givin ONE GOOD REASON why the BIG BANG IS REAL

all you do is use anecdotal replys about how im basically an uneducated idiot because "i questioned einstien"
so what if i questioned einstien
it doesnt mean im stupid

hell questioning the greatest minds of all time is actually a smart thing to do i believe
you can gain alot from posing difficult questions

but you certianly cannot convince someone by avoiding those questions

i came and posted this thread because i know some of the smartest minds in the world are on ATS forums... and some of the dumbest lol
but most of you are very intelligent people

so why dont you use your intelligence which i know that you possess and answer my Question??

i just woke up so i apoligize if a come off kinda grumpy but im always grumpy when i wake up so deal with it lol

so back to the topic
How does background radiation "prove" anything other than the *existance of background radiation*?

i was reading about antimatter and it says when matter and antimatter collide it explodes in a sense , and releases alot of radiation

einstien said "matter won" because he believed that in the early universe there was plenty of antimatter everywhere and he meant that the matter and antimatter pretty much all eliminated each other and there was plenty of 'matter' left over

well how do you know that the background radiation isnt a remanent of the radiation from that massive calatclysm between matter vs antimatter?
plus antimatter is a fact not theory, we create it in certain nuclear reactions...
+ why hasnt anyone offered a reason why the background radiation isnt caused by the radioactive decay of atomic particles over billions of years?

im sure the scientists have thought this through
so im sure someone can figure out Why
and solve my quesiton...

i am awaiting your replys
thank you for your time fellow ATS'rs


you guys are really fun to talk too



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   
I'm a physicist, and every good physicist knows this rule: double-check your references- whomever is agreein with you or encouraging you from the physics field is outright in error...

Also, avoid making speculative inferences, especially if you don't have the backgrround...

Not much of your post is correct, but it is along the right lines- always good to think outside the box, but some of the "here is my logic" statements, while creative, are made without proper knowledge of the subjects.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Well, I'm new here but it seems to me that all of these theories are just educated guesses from the population of a planet who's ventures into space are comparable to polynesian fisherman in a dugout canoe, 2000 years ago. If the Universe is infinite, how can there be a "center" to do any banging or crunching from...


No, not really. Check out the papers that Kid cited and you'll see that there's a lot more there than just a bunch of folks sitting down and saying, "okay... well gosh. This is a big universe. So... what do you think... is it shaped like an orange or a bananna?"


Oh... and... Muzzleflash:
Everyone was addressing your points. You were probably tired and confused, but your initial statement didn't say "okay, please explain the Big Bang" to me.

Instead, you talked about how brilliant physicists thought your question was and seemed unaware of the current research. So everyone gave you references based on what you asked; not on what you implied.

I'm surprised you don't know what "blueshift" is. That's ... way old. Seriously. And the complement of redshift.

[edit on 4-1-2005 by Byrd]



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I have never understood why creatonists automaticly dismiss the big bang theory, maybe thats how god created the universe.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 02:15 AM
link   
Its one of my favorite subjects all be it one that cannot have an answer,as for the big bang being impossible because its a black hole i cant agree, is it proven that a black hole has a limit to which it can eat?before it vomits it back?maybe the universe as far as we can see is the limit to what it can hold.Though being a Christian cannot believe that God would design our universe to perpetually clone and spawn us the same every time the big crunch took place.
Who`s to say there is`nt another universe to far out of our universe we have`nt seen,or a super super massive black hole on the verge of vomiting that it is impossible to see because of its nature,guaranteed there was a time when we did`nt know we were in a solar system or galaxy or our universe for that matter.
I heard the Hubble scope trained its eye on the outer skirts and they found the edge of the known universe,YES but only the edge,maybe they would have to leave the shutter open for a trillion years to discover there are more universes much like our own,well logically speaking anyway,and yes it would`nt surprise me in the least if someone thought of that before but at least i`m original like most of you guys.
I watched a space program and someone said one day there will only be black holes left because they would have swallowed everything,well according to Steven Hawkins black holes give off radiation so they secrete themselves away,well to me it is only logical then when the mass gets to a small enough point then pop, out comes a neutron star or similar,not much of a universe but still one with billions of them



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 05:59 AM
link   
All right. Since I must have hurt your feelings by pointing out the obvious, Ill try and explain the current M thoery in a 4th grade level. Now listen up and try and follow along the best you can. Ill use only big words when no other option is avalible.

First we will start with the string. The current thought is there are two types of strings. Closed loop strings, which mainly make up gravitons, and open ended strings, which pretty much make up everything else.

The Closed loop string. Currently, it is believed that closed loop strings mainly make up graviton particles responsible for, can you guess? GRAVITY! I say mainly because there is something else a closed loop string can become. It can strech out as wide as our universe. Imagine it like a big plastic sheet. This sheet is called a Membrane, or 'brane' for short.

Open loop string: The open loop strings are the building blocks of everything else. They are not actually open at the ends. They are connected to the 'brane' at each end forming an upside down U.

So now we have this enormous sheet, or 'brane' with an uncountable amount of thes strings attached in an upside down U configuration.

Now you have to understand that the current line of thought with physicist is that there are more than 3 demensions. For M theory, there are 11 of them. Each demension could only be a millimeter away from the next, yet we would never be able to see or interact with it accept through gravitons. Another subject all together.

Anyway, each demension or degree of movement, is contained within one of the above mentioned Brane. So now we have these branes next to each other looking something like sheets hanging on clothlins back to back.

Now imagine the enormous amounts of energy contained within each brane. More than we could ever harness. this is where the big bang comes into play. These Branes are undulating like sheets in the wind, and occasionally, they touch, or collide. The Big Bang is the result of the collision of the Branes.

Our universe is a wonderous thing. We may nevery truly know exactly how we got here, but Im sure this current theory is damn close. BTW, there is actual scientific mathmatical evidence to back up the M-theory. All you have provided is speculation and opinion. Now, before some of us have to give you another physics class, please go do some research and prove you more intelligent then the physicist out there who have formed the M-theory. Im talking mathmaticle equations and so on. BTW, something other than speculation and opinion please as neither of these constitutes as evidence.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Yes Sir / Ma'am

Im here to bust a few bubbles about the misconceptions of so called "modern science"

In a nutshell im going to attack the theorys of the
1- Big Bang / Big Crunch
2- Speculations on the Age of Universe
3- Speculations on the Size of Universe
4- The Light Speed Barrier



I am sorry to say it, but your ideas are hopelessly wrong. If the universe was eternal, then the universe would be white instead of black, because it would be filled with light.

I did not read the rest of your ideas, it's obvious why.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
If the universe was eternal, then the universe would be white instead of black, because it would be filled with light.




Could you please elaborate on why the universe would be filled with light if it was eternal? To me, that doesnt follow logic. If the universe were eternal, it would still be dark, because the light would never have a place to stop and reflect off of. Also, when thinking about light, you must take into consideration the speed at which it traveled. I started a thread on this a few months ago. Ill dig up the link and post it. there is alot of really good info on light, and the apperance of objects at near light speeds.


Here is the link to the thread I mentioned:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here is a link to a really good article on light:
www.anu.edu.au...

Enjoy

[edit on 1/4/05 by Kidfinger]



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   
all the mass of the universe was not at a single point before the big bang, it simply didnt exist, but there was energy and under quantum mechanics energy can randomly turn into matter, thats how the big bang happened.
the big crunch theory is wrong and has been disproved for a while.
the red shift effect is due to space expanding not because glalaxies are moving away from each other.
the age of the universe may be wrong but your reasoning about us being at the centre of the universe is, this is because it has never been stated that the edge of the universe is where we can see to just that the light from father away hasnt had time to reach us, we know how fast light travels and how long it took for stars to form after the big bang and so by determining how far we can see we can work out how long its taken for the light to reach us. this tells us how much time has passed since these first stars formed abd by adding on the time it took them to form we can find out the age of the universe.
finally special relativity states that to get to the speed of light any thing with a mass greater then zero must reach a mass of infinity so needs an infinite amount of energy to get to that mass and there isnt enough energy to get an object of a mass greater then zero upto light speed, thats why we cant pass it. but objects of mass less then zero can.
you are right that we dont know if the theory of special relativity holds for light speed and if it does then if a mass greater then zero reaches light speed then the universe will collapes-



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   


Could you please elaborate on why the universe would be filled with light if it was eternal?


Certainly.



To me, that doesnt follow logic.


You could have searched the web...it's not my claim, but rather a scientific one.



If the universe were eternal, it would still be dark, because the light would never have a place to stop and reflect off of


Nope. If the universe was eternal, the probability of light travelling every possible path would be ...infinite. To state it simply, Earth would be bombarded with light particles from all sides, since there would be infinite light sources from all around us, having been in all possible configurations. Light would be everywhere.

Furthermore, eternal != infinite.



. Also, when thinking about light, you must take into consideration the speed at which it traveled.


The speed of light does not play a role, since we are talking about an eternal universe.



Enjoy


thanks.

By the way, an infinite/eternal universe violates the laws of thermodynamics.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp


You could have searched the web...it's not my claim, but rather a scientific one.



Funny, I havent been able to find this.





Nope. If the universe was eternal, the probability of light travelling every possible path would be ...infinite. To state it simply, Earth would be bombarded with light particles from all sides, since there would be infinite light sources from all around us, having been in all possible configurations. Light would be everywhere.


Thats an awful lot of assumption you have going on there. Just because the probabiltiy is there does not mean this is what will occour. Also, agian, I can find no evidence to support your claim. Please post some.



Furthermore, eternal != infinite.



Well, you do have that one right.





The speed of light does not play a role, since we are talking about an eternal universe.

Yes it does. The speed of light represents time as it appears. Think about that for a minute.



By the way, an infinite/eternal universe violates the laws of thermodynamics.


No it doesnt. Lets look at a brief definition of Thermal Dynamics.


The study of the laws that govern the conversion of energy from one form to another, the direction in which heat will flow, and the availability of energy to do work. It is based on the concept that in an isolated system anywhere in the universe there is a measurable quantity of energy called the internal energy (U) of the system.


In laymans terms, its the rules for heat conversion. How does this violate an infinite universe?

If you are going to say that " Well, if the universe is infinite, no light would ever reach us because it would have infinite heat dispersal at any distance traveled," Then please find a different argument. M theory explains this away as our big bang is not the first, nor will it be the last. Did you read the basic explination of the M-Theory earlier? I suggest you see the part where I analogised Branes to sheets hanging on a cloths line. Well, when these sheets are blowing gently in the wind, they occasionally bump. This, in comparison with the Branes in the many demensions is how the big bang is represented. Now when the sheets blow in the wind, they bump quite often, hence more big bangs. This means that our universe could be just following previouse paths of many other universes before it. This is why it would still be dark in an infinite universe. And actually, if you have ever looked through a halfway decent telescope you would see that the universe is actually not all that dark. There are MANY light sources in the form of far away stars, star nurseries, and other whole galaxies.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Ok well I read the whole thread!

anyways adressing the infinante light problem I will refer you to Olbers Paradox I dare you to google it... It should shed some light, pardon the pun.

The Big Bang! exciting stuff. First I comend you on putting so much thought into the subject. Cosmology is a complicated feild and can sometime be difficult to find or put all the information into a bigger picture. Anyways good job interesting ideas. The problem with the big crunch as said earlier has been disproven. but what you were missing was that there were, before this theory was disproven, 3 possibilities to the shape of the flow of the universe I suppose you could say. and open universe, flat or closed. Closed ultimatly ends in the big crunch. Open ahhhh it been a while... flat which is the commonly accepted theory suggests that yes the world will end but not soon however. is a slow cool down of the universe... suns die out, fuel is used up- no fuel=no new suns, suns die of or turn to black holes and well you see where its going.

Ok there is just too much to explain ummm best advice... take a cosmology class.

look into

-hubbles law & constant
-Planck Era
-Inflation of the universe after the big bang: regarding the horizon and the flatness problems- ummmm regarding us being the center of the universe or seeing the red shift in every direction we point a telescope
-Cosmological Priciple
-Symmetry breaking in the early universe (matter opposed to anti-matter related stuff + other)
-Quantum physics theory (lol)



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by masterp


I am sorry to say it, but your ideas are hopelessly wrong. If the universe was eternal, then the universe would be white instead of black, because it would be filled with light.


If the universe were eternally old, then the sky would be hopelessly bright, but not neccessarily so if it were eternally large.


According to Alex Filipenko, the universe either expanded or still is expanding faster than light speed (Not violating relativity, because space itself was expanding). I was going to go somewhere with this, but i started thinking about it, and i hurt my head.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 04:21 PM
link   



Funny, I havent been able to find this.



www.asterism.org...



Thats an awful lot of assumption you have going on there. Just because the probabiltiy is there does not mean this is what will occour. Also, agian, I can find no evidence to support your claim. Please post some.


Think about it logically for a minute. If the universe was eternal, wouldn't light come from all directions? some star would have existed any point in the past.



Yes it does. The speed of light represents time as it appears.


The speed of light has nothing to do with time. Time is a measurement of change. The speed of light is measured as a constant in every frame of reference, whereas time is different in every frame of reference.

I know general relativity is a difficult subject; I've tortured myself a lot on it.



In laymans terms, its the rules for heat conversion. How does this violate an infinite universe?


Entropy would not work in an infinite system. An infinite system is open. The laws of thermodynamics requre a closed system.



If you are going to say that " Well, if the universe is infinite, no light would ever reach us because it would have infinite heat dispersal at any distance traveled," Then please find a different argument.


Light does not dissipate heat in space.



My theory explains this away as our big bang is not the first, nor will it be the last.


I never said our big bang was the first. But there was a big bang.



Did you read the basic explination of the M-Theory earlier?


Why should I? your initial thesis was wrong.



This means that our universe could be just following previouse paths of many other universes before it.



This is why it would still be dark in an infinite universe.


Well, what are you saying exactly? it is either that there are big bangs, or there is an infinite universe. Infinite big bangs do not make an infinite universe, since our universe-bubble is a closed one.



And actually, if you have ever looked through a halfway decent telescope you would see that the universe is actually not all that dark. There are MANY light sources in the form of far away stars, star nurseries, and other whole galaxies.


It is plain obvious with naked eyes in a dark unlit sky...there is no need for a telescope.

But that was not the point of my discussion. The point was that since there is infinite past, light should come from all directions, filling the night sky.

In other words, no matter where you looked in the sky, a light beam from some star that had existed in the direction you were looking would come towards you.

Furthermore, our universe is expanding,and that's established scientific knowledge.

Additionally, there is a problem with physics math: some Limit formulas will never approach zero if the universe is infinite. But math was never my strong point, so I will leave it to more educated people.

Finally, if the universe was infinite, then how God created it?



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   
I suggest you read Dan Brown's Angels & Demons. He explains a very, very, very logical experiment, it also explains how it all started. And this experiment is something we are definitely capable of, and may have already been achieved. And, I know, you're going to say "it's only a book" but I believe it.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join