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.

 

There's something wrong with the Big Bang Theory

page: 5
22
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: gell1234

>Admits to not understanding TBBT
>Calls it stupid anyway

Never change, ATS 😅
edit on 25-9-2017 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: greenreflections

originally posted by: Erno86
a reply to: greenreflections




"Physicists may find hints as to what this process might be by studying the subtle differences in the behavior of matter and antimatter particles created in high-energy proton collisions at the Large Hadron Collider. Studying the imbalance could help scientists paint a clearer picture of why our universe is matter-filled."


www.home.cern...


Sure I will wait for LHC to come up with explanation...in a mean time, I am bound to speculate and post it on ATS)))lol..

May be you could insert your own interpretation on any of this? Trust me, it is so cool and relaxing to speculate on topics that are having loose ends. Try it and engage in discussion for real.

cheers and thanks for links.



Antimatter was probably the catalyst for the Big Bang.

Just my .02



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 02:23 AM
link   
Yes...then someone agreed...

a reply to: GetHyped



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   
Aaah I see the issue here... lets have a look at your reply


originally posted by: gell1234
Physics at energy scales my a$$!

You clearly don't understand the statement, so your rebuttal is naturally to say that the statement is dumb or stupid. Standard tactic, It doesn't make my statement any less relevant. Yes, physics processes occur at different rates and dominance at different physical configurations. Highly compressed and highly energetic environment, you won't form regular matter as we know it. So conceptualizing it in the 'way we know it' in regular day to day life is quite honestly incorrect.



Gone faster than the speed of light yet?

Impossible....

But aliens have?

Relavent to the subject... how exactly? Talking about the inflation period? if so, simply ask. So lets break it down again
(Q)Gone faster than the speed of light yet?
(A) No, and nothing that we have good solid physical proof has either in a manner than transfers information
(Statement) Impossible....
(Reply) Probably as far as we know
(Q) But aliens have?
(A) Aliens undoubtedly exist... Do we have proof that they have visited? or can travel FTL? No, we don't have any solid, good evidence of such a thing. Just evidence that apparently defies the proliferation of high resolution video and photography equipment... We have had more than 10 years of improvements to consumer digital photography and yet all we see posted as evidence is the same grainy artefact riddled rubbish mixed with some ignorance to how the devices work to explain what appears on the images.



You're right, I don't understand the Big Bang theory, though I've read a little...I just think 'what will those wacky scientists come up with next?'

Ah yes the classic "Iv read a little bit of popular science and don't get it, so the people at the heart of the subject are obviously crazy"
Ever met a scientist? Most people haven't and most popular science tv programs are made with almost zero scientific oversight. They are also pitched to people who don't know the subjects very well and are not really interest or invested to really expand their understanding. So, as a layman who admits not understanding it, it then goes with the territory that your opinion of the theory and the people working on said subjects is basically from an unknowledgeable standpoint and thus irrelevant.

If you want to form a reason as to why the big bang theory is wrong, it needs to be on firmer ground than "Oh man its crazy!" Sorry, but yeah you need to try a wee bit harder.




It's more likely that we, in our limited human understanding, can't yet understand a concept like 'faster than light travel' or 'where the universe came from/how it started.'

a reply to: ErosA433



And then comes a grand statement, "we in our limited human understanding" Yeah we admittedly don't know it all. No scientist ever claims to, or shouldn't. Because the layman always sees us science 'boffins' as 'know alls' or have ideas of how just about everything works... the rabbit hole does go down a long way and every scientist worth anything will admit that there are very many things we simply don't understand.

With we have with the big bang theory is lots and lots and lots of observations, and only a single, really good theory that fits them all to a good degree and in a self consistent and predictive way. SOooooo again this throw away statement is kind of just as silly as saying "I don't know, but despite not knowing, i know it isn't this"



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I dunno, maybe I got hold of Einsteins brain...

I've seen a spaceship but you and your science can't explain that either....a reply to: ErosA433


edit on 26-9-2017 by gell1234 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Cinnamon


I think that if another universe collide with ours, CMB would show 'hot' spots instead of 'cold' if I go with your line of thinking.
edit on 26-9-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   



posted on Oct, 18 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: 23432

Me using English as second language might translate that quote inaccurately. And if I imagine out starry background, at the end, that quote does not sound all that dramatic....even wrong.

IMO, if we roll back few hundred years, human beings via observations, with time, will still arrive to the same conclusion about cosmos as we have today. There were no wrong turns.



edit on 18-10-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-10-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections
It was a Russian Scientist who has spoken about this at an American Institute and very interesting it was too. As for 'no proof of Aliens' - who can forget the SpacexX Rocket launch failure and it being buzzed by a UFO last year. SpaceX UFO
I don't sit well with the Big Bang Theory but current science supports it and since I can't think of anything else, I'll go along with it. Although the majority of it depends on the redshift of light at great distance and add that to the doom and gloom of Dark Energy and it all becomes rather gloomy.



posted on Oct, 20 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Cinnamon


It was a Russian Scientist who has spoken about this at an American Institute and very interesting it was too.


Do you recall the name or title reference so I can look it up?


edit on 20-10-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-10-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
22
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join