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.

 

I am a fan of science, but the Big Bang doesn't seem realitstic to me.

page: 3
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 04:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Our "Science" is as mythological as any other story we may use to explain the origins of what we observe.


He says as he types on a computer that's connected to the Internet, each rife with billions of semiconductor devices, all doing exactly what you'd calculate.

I hear crap like this from people that have fairly weak educations. I know you're religious, but it's a bit surprising, especially given the simplicity with which I can pick your statement to bits.




posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 04:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: PastaHat

originally posted by: EchoesInTime
a reply to: droid56

I'm skeptical of the big bang theory. Seems impossible that everything came from a single point.

In the future, people will probably look at the big bang theory like they do the flat earth believers of past centuries.



Nothing wrong with that, continued understanding of reality is always good.

It's just hindered by people who believe in things with no testable data. IE; god.

And for anyone who looks at all the data for how the universe started, it's obvious to conclude it has done so more than once. And in fact, may have been the result of a different universe having a singularity so dense, it bled into a new universe, thus spewing faster than light, all the matter contained within it. who knows.

I don't go for the holographic or simulated universe. just seems too based on our contemporary understanding of either concepts. which falls back on your point, flat earther stuff..


There is testable data of the existence of God.

The issue is not an absence of evidence, it is one of not accepting what the evidence indicates.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: droid56

Mow much material came together to cause the big bang?

What sort bang was it electical, electromatic, magnetic or what?

What material was the big bang made of?

Who or what set the big bang off?

Why did it go off?



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 04:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: droid56

Mow much material came together to cause the big bang?


When you get spontaneous emission of particle pairs, where does the material come from?



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 04:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Raggedyman




Booyakasha is right, there are basically just two ideas, two ideals


False.

For example, I don't care how the Universe started or how it will end.

I care a lot about my daughter, family, and friends. I think that what I do has effects beyond those which I observe and I care about that. I think about that. But I don't care how the Universe started or how it will end.

And, I know for a fact that I am not the only one who thinks that way.


If we have some sort of eternal existence (with or without God), then the fate of a finite universe will directly affect us all.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 04:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: chr0naut

Well there is part of your misunderstanding I see during the big bang matter didn't travel faster than light. Shocked by that aren't you??what,happened is the space between matter expanded. Oddly the distance between objects doesn't change at all unless they are in motion. BUT THE SPACE BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS CAN EXPAND. So even say galaxies are in the same relative position from everything else since the beginning.


You have some scientific basis for your assertion that space expanded? Perhaps you have observed space expanding and have a mathematical framework to describe it?

If the space between two objects expands, then it is exactly the same as the objects moving away from each other in every physical mathematical definition I have ever seen. Relativistic momentum doesn't vanish from the equations of spacetime just because you choose not to acknowledge it.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 04:41 AM
link   
The Big Bang is the kind of BS you wind up with when Science (upper case S) has no answer and scientists (lower case S) are repeatedly asked for an answer.

Ask any Scientist about this subject and he will flat out tell you, "I don't _know_ and neither does anyone else."



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 04:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: chr0naut
Our "Science" is as mythological as any other story we may use to explain the origins of what we observe.


He says as he types on a computer that's connected to the Internet, each rife with billions of semiconductor devices, all doing exactly what you'd calculate.

I hear crap like this from people that have fairly weak educations. I know you're religious, but it's a bit surprising, especially given the simplicity with which I can pick your statement to bits.


Honestly, I was not talking about technology, so that's a bit of a red herring. I was addressing the 'theoretical' in theoretical physics. Some people just don't discriminate, but I do.

I'm fairly sure i don't have a weak education and I'm sure you don't, either.

But it appears that you don't wish to address the 'nakedness of the emperor'. There is much in cosmological physics which is not supported by observation nor is it testable. Yet people still call it 'science'.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 04:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Snarl

Yes, the astronomers "don't know", but that is the best-tested and most viable explanation ("theory") yet.

It explains so much: microwave background radiation, Hubble's expansion constant, red-light-shifting, etc.

..
Yes, there are problems: inflation, "who done it?", singularity-problems, and so on. But those are so very much minor that every theory which would replace the "Big Bang" would have to include a major part of that bang, because otherwise it couldn't explain so very many objective facts we can study right now.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 05:00 AM
link   
I think it's pretty evident that things were done as a part of a plan,earth moon thing hard to overcome,chances of big bang theory,slim to none,just someone unwilling to accept the truth,we have had civilizations several times,and they have been destroyed,just to start over ,with a new type of person,humanoid,I grew up as a Christian and as much faith as I have,hard to overlook facts and truth,when you do your only fooling yourself



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: droid56

There are some questions we may never know the answer to.

This could be one of them.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 05:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: chr0naut

Well there is part of your misunderstanding I see during the big bang matter didn't travel faster than light. Shocked by that aren't you??what,happened is the space between matter expanded. Oddly the distance between objects doesn't change at all unless they are in motion. BUT THE SPACE BETWEEN TWO OBJECTS CAN EXPAND. So even say galaxies are in the same relative position from everything else since the beginning.


And we take your word for that
Any evidence or is that just a faith statement you want others to adopt because you believe it
Yes the space between objects can expand, so where is the proof of a Big Bang and why did it happen

It's almost insanity to suggest others believe that, I know you are religious, but...come on.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: droid56

Mow much material came together to cause the big bang?


When you get spontaneous emission of particle pairs, where does the material come from?


Surely, to prevent annihilation of virtual particle pairs, there must be conditions to keep the particles separate.

If we are talking about the Casimir force, then there has to be a matter interaction with the virtual particle pair to affect one of the virtual particles differently than the other.

In empty space containing no matter, there is no such condition, so how did the particles get separated enough to make matter if there was no matter? The whole quantum fluctuation thing cannot work unless matter already exists.

As a first cause explanation, it fails.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 05:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: Snarl

Yes, the astronomers "don't know", but that is the best-tested and most viable explanation ("theory") yet.

It explains so much: microwave background radiation, Hubble's expansion constant, red-light-shifting, etc.

..
Yes, there are problems: inflation, "who done it?", singularity-problems, and so on. But those are so very much minor that every theory which would replace the "Big Bang" would have to include a major part of that bang, because otherwise it couldn't explain so very many objective facts we can study right now.


How is it the best tested, how has it even been tested.
Seriously, where do you come up with this stuff



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 05:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Azureblue
a reply to: droid56

Mow much material came together to cause the big bang?


When you get spontaneous emission of particle pairs, where does the material come from?


No where and everywhere😀. In physics you need to look at fields. Now physics tell us that everything fluctuates as it tries to find its ground state. A ground state is its lowest energy level and that's the goal of the universe find its lowest energy level.

Let's switch and explain this way The energy in "empty" space is zero, right? Physicists used to think this was true until quantum mechanics, The Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics says that the more accurately we can know the energy, the less accurately we know the time. And vice versa.

So what we learned is simple, That energy can exist anywhere and does its just in an incredibly short period of time..So the shorter the time period over which we make our measurement, the more uncertain is the value of the energy. This Uncertainty means that as we look at shorter and shorter time periods we see fluctuations in the energy levels. Or in other words we no longer have zero energydue to quantum fluctuations.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Is that the best reply to my posting you could manage?

Because, yes, it can be tested.
Via simulations.
Just like your car - that would be tested in computersimulations, too, before the first prototype would be built.


Come on, bring a better argument next time.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: droid56

Actually, at some stage there was nothing, not even a pinheads worth of something. Then there was an awful lot of stuff, in a hot dense state for a great deal of time.

The matter of life is somewhat more complicated than you have made out there though. For a start, no one, and I mean not one single individual on the face of this Earth, has concluded that life came about on a time scale analogous to that of the universe in which it exists. The potential for it did, as we can prove easily by the fact that we exist, are alive, and so on. Furthermore, we are not sure what part of the universe the building blocks of life originated from. There are some very good reasons to suspect that the fundamental structures which made life on this planet possible, did not originate on this world, but if not here, then where and when?

As for dark matter, there was once a time when human beings did not consider the atom. Now, even the lowest order of moron can occasionally have cause to consider the atomic and subatomic. The thinking is ubiquitous, even amongst the intellectually unimpressive. This suggests to me, that while dark matter and energy are poorly understood at present, as atomic matters once were, that at some stage we will gain a proper understanding of these matters, either banishing the concept of dark matter and energy, in favour of better explanations, or potentially fleshing out the concept until it provides adequate description of itself, its construction and its purpose in the universe.

As for the simulation theory, this all boils down to what began this thing we call the universe. Whether this is a simulation being run in some colossal machine, or a universe suspended within a multiverse, the question remains the same. What, or who, caused the thing to get going in the first place, and how do we find out more about that?



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: droid56


I suspect we live in a computer simulation


yes, but what created this simulation....God?



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 05:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
No where and everywhere😀.


You're preaching to the choir here. It's the "where did it come from then" group it was addressed to.



posted on Apr, 13 2017 @ 05:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
As a first cause explanation, it fails.


Only if you don't understand the creation operator.

Particle pairs happen all the live long day.

So, it's obvious that this can happen. It's really not even that hard to arrange, so you can see it - I used to catch these on my cloud chamber as a yoot.

Can matter be created then, yes. It's butt simple to cause.

As a "first cause", it's just a bit bigger occurrence. But it's no biggy with branes intersecting. The bigger issue is that it only happens once, and that there's no one about to record it.
edit on 13-4-2017 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
30
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join