what caused the big bang?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 4 2003 @ 10:10 PM
link   
You have some flaws in your logic. I admit that you bring up good points, but the Big Bang theory is fairly specific, although there are still points that need work.


"Ugh no...the Big Bang did not come from a Singularity."

Yes, that is what they refer to the entity that exploded (something so compact that it was believed to be smaller than a single atom).


"Not the way you describe it anyways, please do not link "Black holes" to white holes, white holes do not exist, there are no such things."

White holes are theoretical. White holes are what we know of as worm holes. They are the linkage between two extremely powerful gravity sources that pierce spacetime and have a small opening in between. White holes are thought to be possible, but never seen.


"Anyways...the idea of the Universe forming from a singularity is preposturous, as before the Big Bang there were no dimensions of space."

That's what a singularity is. That is why they refer to it as a singularity. It is not the exact same singularity as a black hole (or I suppose it could be) but it has many of the same technical characterists of what we believe a singularity produces.

"Therefore a universe could not have been created in any "place"...any time is debatable, but it could be assumed that there is no "time" either before the big bang."

Right, because the existence of those dimensions are negotiable.

"So before the big bang there is literally nothing."

This is not certain in science or philosophy. As I said, the idea of the singularity is used. This links to the Oscillating Universe Theory, which has some problems as well. Brane/Braine theory just approaches the problem from a different angle. It believes that we are an accident that occurred in between two membranes of sorts. Although the idea is sometimes linked with holographics, the whole theory is very odd and I believe some problems with the theory have been formally posted... I believe I read them a year or two ago.


"The best theory, but also the most confusing I've heard of, is the "Braine" theory...named after the man who came up with it.

I think it is in some way tied to string theory."

Yes it is, but it moves away from the hyperspace created by the superstrings and introduces the theory of the two membranes instead. I believe the idea is a visual plane of existence between two complex surfaces that define our dimensions (or what we call the universe). I probably should not comment because it has been so long since I read the article on it.


"Last I read it was being wondered whether it would be oscillating or not."

Oscillating universe theory is considered a separate theory altogether, related to expansion theory.

"Frankly, I don't believe the universe is "expanding"."

That's a dangerous opinion to take.

"Because the universe is not created in any point in space, it IS space, we can't comprehend with the mind what's beyond space//time. So technically we aren't "expanding", but rather the volume as we know it is increasing."

I believe we've already begun. It involves the Theory of Imaginary Time. It uses complex math to calculate portions of the universe that exist outside of the element of regular time. I believe it helps to determine what may be found in blackholes and before the universe was born... as well as theorize a death. Also, as I said in my previous post, there is a theory that says we may be inside of another greater universe.

"Does this mean an expansion?
Not necissarily."

Have you heard of "red-shift?" This means that we are expanding because the stars and galaxies are all moving in a given direction ever since what we call "The Big Bang."

"If our speed is proportional to time, then the radius of the universe is not a distance but a time...15 billion years."

No, the radius is a distance and that radius is proportional to the amount of time it has been traveling outwards from the theoretical center.

"The volume coicides with the velocity x time, not a physical distance."

What? Velocity is distance/time. If you multiply that by time then you get distance (time cancels). So you are completely wrong. Volume is not a measure of velocity or time, it is a measure of 3 dimensional space.

"We are no larger now than we were before, though we can say that in the first trillionth of a second I think it was, the universe was the size of a Grape fruit of now..."

Yes to the second part. We are extremely large at this point. We continually get larger, which also coincides with the new VSL theory.

"However, this isn't a "physical" way of looking at it but a conceptual way."

Apparently, because your "physical" math is wrong.

"A way to look at it to remove the idea of "expansion and space"."

Didn't you just say that the brain was not capable of such things?

"Because you can't expand into nothingness, a vaccum is not nothing, it has dimensions and time..."

Wrong and Right. We don't know if you can expand into nothingness... but why not? What's to stop you from expanding into something that is truly empty? The vacuum of space does have dimensions and time, yes... and some say virtual particles (I believe this to be aether).

"We won't be any further from the point we're at now...but objects will be farther from us. In the future."

No, we are hurdling through space at a generous clip. Again, study red-shift.

"Like-wise they won't be any further from their current location, but we'll be farther from them."

You act like we are the center of the universe and don't move. We are actually closer to the outstretch, as far as I know (quite far from the "center"). We will all technically get further apart, but because of large gravity sources (suns and blackholes), we tend to stay together in groups.

"Because of TIME. It is this "physical" necessity of space, that makes us think we are expanding distantly."

Yes, we are physical beings and exist inside of space. Perhaps you are a transdimensional being, but the rest of us peon humans have things called "bodies" to contend with. Time is either the physical fourth dimension or part of the physical fourth dimension.

"But we are really just expanding Temporally...the distance is all apart of the math that governs our universe."

We are going forward in time, yes. We are also going forward/outward in space. You must believe in the time theory that all points in reality are just "slices" of time, like movies film. This is a controversal theory and not widely accepted as being correct.

"In fact what would be an equation to determine the distance between 2 objects based on time."

Where would you like me to begin? Have you heard of a word called velocity? or perhaps acceleration? Going down the line you have snap, crackle, pop, and jerk, if I remember correctly. This is all calculus here.

"Either way, all I'm saying is remove yourselves from the idea of space and distances, and start thinking on the scale of time and speeds."

Time is a variable used to determine speed. Distance is a variable used to determine speed. Space is a way to determine distances, time need to travel distances, and speeds.

"Speed being a constant expression of energy used in a certain amount of time."

Huh? Where are you throwing in the variable "E?" Speed=Velocity=distance/time. Energy has a component of velocity (E=mc^2, where c is the velocity of light). I'm sure you could derive Energy in other ways, but I still think you are taking the physics out of context.

"So technically, nothing is moving...it is all energy used in a given amount of time."

No and Yes. Stuff does move. We use "time" as a way to measure how much it has moved, but it is moving. If stuff didn't move, time would be irrelevant. It is all energy, because matter is a form of energy.

"I want to hear some comments on this before I write more about it...the theory is bubbling in my mind but I'll just go in circles without outside inputs, questions, and debates on what has been brought up already."

Be careful with time theories crossing into physics theories. Time is considered more of a philosophical subject, like right vs wrong. If you base a theory on time alone, you are doing philosophy. If you are basing it on the movement of mathematical objects (mass/matter/energy) which can be calculated, then you are doing physics. I know, because I've had enough calculus based physics and theory study and philosophy to know the difference.

Try again.




posted on Jul, 5 2003 @ 09:40 AM
link   
You state:

"Therefore a universe could not have been created in any "place"...any time is debatable, but it could be assumed that there is no "time" either before the big bang."

You're funny.


Of course there was no time! There was no time until man found the undeniable need to measure change and decided to define a parameter for measuring such! Time is COMPLETELY man-made.



posted on Jul, 5 2003 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Time is the fourth dimension.

This means, time is our way of quantifying the distance 3 dimensional objects travel using what you might call integration (calculus). If you take a step-by-step account for a particular 3 dimensional object, you'll notice that each interval has, the object moved so far. This means time is how you know a distance over a given interval. Even if an object stands still, it still has the potential to move a given interval. This brings potential and kinetic energy into play when understanding time. There are a number of factors, but I believe time is just our way of using regular intervals to describe movement of objects. I believe Einstein thought the same.

Just incase you think this makes life too simple, time is only considered the 4th dimension. It is believed that at least 4 dimensions exist and very possibly 10 or 11 altogether. This leaves a lot of room what beyond time.



posted on Jul, 5 2003 @ 01:54 PM
link   


Time is the fourth dimension.


LOL, you got to be joking, as of this moment, we still don't know what time is. Your presume to much on a subject that is yet finished.

Time can be changed, so it is not a stedy variable, if anything time is the result of co-existing dimensions, not the forth dimension.

And yes I do know about Physics, thats why I know the big bang theory is BS.

RobertBurns - you made a lot of good points


[Edited on 7/5/2003 by FoxStriker]



posted on Jul, 5 2003 @ 02:14 PM
link   
"LOL, you got to be joking, as of this moment, we still don't know what time is. Your presume to much on a subject that is yet finished."

The only problem with time is that different people try to define it differently. Einstein and other famous mathematicians and physicist tried to change this, but I suppose the trend has not caught on. Time is how we view the fourth dimension. Yes, there are a lot of other factors that come into play if you want to discuss religion or time travel, but the fact remains that mathematics can explain the effects of time by using a 4th dimension. It is not that mystical. Why people insist on making the idea so complex is anybody's guess.

"Time can be changed, so it is not a stedy variable, if anything time is the result of co-existing dimensions, not the forth dimension."

You apparently have no idea what the fourth dimension is. The fourth dimension is one that can move within itself and change itself. Think of being able to turn yourself inside out and still function perfectly. The complexity of the fourth dimension must be studied to be understood. What you just said are only a couple aspects of the fourth dimension. Try not to prove yourself wrong next time.

"And yes I do know about Physics, thats why I know the big bang theory is BS."

Really? Please professor, tell me why? The only credit I will give you is that the Big Bang theory is incomplete, but extremely accurate for what we have.



posted on Jul, 5 2003 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Protector - Have you seen this forth dimension, its theory, I stand by what I said, time is always changing and yes I put that time is the result of co-existing dimensions. Time itself cannot be a dimension, it is the result of the dimensions, you may say what you want, but you have to do your own research on the subject.
To see how flawed this theory is.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
"And yes I do know about Physics, thats why I know the big bang theory is BS."

Really? Please professor, tell me why? The only credit I will give you is that the Big Bang theory is incomplete, but extremely accurate for what we have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Everything the Big Bang theory is based on is theory upon theory, theory upon theory, theory upon theory, theory upon theory, theory upon theory, theory upon theory, theory upon theory, theory upon theory. Need I say more, I don't have a theory on how the Universe because even If I was correct on one assumption I would be wrong in 20,000,000 million more.

Thats what I think the BigBang Theory is, 5/20 million.



Yes, there are a lot of other factors that come into play if you want to discuss religion or time travel, but the fact remains that mathematics can explain the effects of time by using a 4th dimension. It is not that mystical. Why people insist on making the idea so complex is anybody's guess.


I agree with most of this, except that most of the mathematics we try to use to solve this are adequate, I'm 100% sure that we will need to do a Trial and Error kind of research in order to find out what it is.



posted on Jul, 5 2003 @ 05:08 PM
link   
"Protector - Have you seen this forth dimension, its theory, I stand by what I said, time is always changing and yes I put that time is the result of co-existing dimensions."

Yes, I've seen computer models of the 4th dimension. It is fairly interesting. Do I know all of the details? Of course not, but I'm sure you don't know all of the details about how your own body works. The general idea is what is important and on trial here. Stereoscopic models of the 4th dimension are easy enough to find on the internet.

"Time itself cannot be a dimension, it is the result of the dimensions, you may say what you want, but you have to do your own research on the subject."

Almost all of my research is done on my own. Majoring in physics makes me pretty darn knowledgeable as well, if you ask me. Time is part of the 4th dimension, yes. It may be the fourth dimension and have properties we don't attribute to time, normally. Either way, you haven't put forth a bit of proof for your claims.

"Everything the Big Bang theory is based on is theory upon theory, ... theory upon theory."

Actually it is based on evidence, basic natural laws, mathematical theorems, and theory.

If you get kicked in the head in the dark, would you assume that a foot was what hit you? Probably. You may have shoe laces imprinted on your head and perhaps a Nike symbol. Assuming you have that evidence, although you cannot be 100% certain, you are pretty sure that it was a foot that kicked you... specifically a Nike shoe. That is the same process that created the Big Bang theory.

Here is a brief explanation of the history from NASA

Over the years, thousands of people have developed this theory. Some parts were found wrong, other parts were proven to great lengths. Red shift, dopplar effect, star formation, black holes, relativity, quantum mechanics... these are all things we have mountains of evidence for. Each of these lend to the main theory. To say, "I won't believe it because I don't want to," is childish. Bring me evidence or grow up.

"Need I say more, I don't have a theory on how the Universe because even If I was correct on one assumption I would be wrong in 20,000,000 million more."

Well, you'd have to make an attempted before you can be one 20,000,000th right. I would say the Big Bang is over 60% correct just by evidence alone and probably 95% correct through outstanding theories that have yet to be tested in multiple trials. The stack of evidence you can find is enormous. I've read dozens of papers on supporting evidence.

"Thats what I think the BigBang Theory is, 5/20 million."

Thousands of people and billions of dollars in technology and you must be the one person who truly understands. Everyone else is wrong. Oh wait, that's right, you don't even present any evidence. You just think you're right.


"I agree with most of this, except that most of the mathematics we try to use to solve this are adequate, I'm 100% sure that we will need to do a Trial and Error kind of research in order to find out what it is."

You are alive. You experience time 24 hours a day. Take a deep breath and you are doing trial and error. Time exists. As far as its manipulation, that is a much longer story and the government would probably kill you if you knew anything of relevence to the subject... ok, that's exaggerating. Yes, trials need to be done so proof can be collected. This happens everyday around the world in the science community... which causes theories like the Big Bang to be highly accurate.

I challenge you to do a bit of research for YOURself. Because I'm a curious person, I'd also like to hear any theory you might have that forces to to believe the Big Bang is so flawed.



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 08:23 AM
link   
Protector,

Time was created by man to measure all change (and change would pretty much include movement, right?) Now, if we created time as an instrument for measuring just about every concept/hypothesis/theory dealing with change or movement, we have to exclude each and every one of those items as a tool for establishing that "time exists". Time exists just as long as we have something moving or changing right?

Thought experiment: Stop ALL processes, ALL movement in the universe - there would be absolutely no TIME. No deterioration to designate passage of TIME. No movement to designate passage of TIME. Time would cease. Time is our meauring stick for everything around us - period. There is nothing dependent on time. Yet virtually everything we measure we do relative to time. We could have just as well have ended up with "solar movement" as the basic measurement of change. And, NO, you wouldn't be able to call that time, you would call it "solar movement".

Protector, don't take offense, but you have become time-dependent



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 09:29 AM
link   
The videotape, "Gravity and the Red Shift", its a must see. It describes the cause of gravity in the endless, static universe. I have a bootleg.

Think of the universe as being female. Their is a constant rebirthing process. Just as in our nature as human beings. What caused this process to begin is beyond us. Beyond our ability to understand maybe.

Maybe the science has already been discovered. Our species will revolt if such info is dripped out. With such a high emphasis on religion, majority of people would not be able to grasp such discoveries. Why, because most humans are still in a primitive state of mind.

I once asked a priest if he thought human beings evolved from ape's. He laughed at me. He see's " humans as being so superior that it would be impossible to link them to ape's".

Perfect example of how religion brainwashes the senses. The ego always gets in the way dammit.



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 12:25 PM
link   
i dont think man created time
we might have created the numerical system ( which I doubt) but the universe always had cycles of change. seasons, hours, years, decades. numbers are universal codes...numbers are in everything, music, words, DNA, elements all come together by numbers.

there is a great new movie everyone should see, its called WAKING LIFE

www.wakinglifemovie.com...

Its intriguing. go rent it.



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Im tired of trying to argue with someone so pig headed, and by what you said, I know you didn't do your own research or else you would have considered the possibilities that the big bang strongly shows evidence that it is wrong. It doesn't take someone with a Physics major or doctrine to figure out that the theory is wrong.



You are alive. You experience time 24 hours a day. Take a deep breath and you are doing trial and error. Time exists. As far as its manipulation, that is a much longer story and the government would probably kill you if you knew anything of relevence to the subject... ok, that's exaggerating. Yes, trials need to be done so proof can be collected. This happens everyday around the world in the science community... which causes theories like the Big Bang to be highly accurate.


Trial and Error on what: Earth, a computer, A lab. Please don't take those test literally.

The reason I don't think the big bang is correct is because I considered if it was right, and came to the conclusion that its not right.

Even you came to the same conclusion as I did, its just that your so hard headed that you yourself don't see the truth.




Over the years, thousands of people have developed this theory. Some parts were found wrong, other parts were proven to great lengths. Red shift, dopplar effect, star formation, black holes, relativity, quantum mechanics... these are all things we have mountains of evidence for. Each of these lend to the main theory. To say, "I won't believe it because I don't want to," is childish. Bring me evidence or grow up.


You just proved my statement, If the theory was not complete then its not right in the first place.



Well, you'd have to make an attempted before you can be one 20,000,000th right. I would say the Big Bang is over 60% correct just by evidence alone and probably 95% correct through outstanding theories that have yet to be tested in multiple trials. The stack of evidence you can find is enormous. I've read dozens of papers on supporting evidence.


You just proved that I'm right again, 60% does not make the theory correct, and then you said that the theory could be right 95% with outstanding theories, which is made up of theories upon theories upon theories. No matter what you say, the theory is not right.

Even the damn theory itself is based on presuming that the big bang occured in the first place. I think its time for you to review you Physics again, and stop wasting my time with your fantasies of the big bang.

Here's a website that might help you cope with this new info.

www.angelfire.com...


[Edited on 7/7/2003 by FoxStriker]



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Kitty

Waking Life.

Really nice movie, the best animation, but I won't rent it, because I can't sit through it again. Definitely once is enough category.

Linklater made 'Tape' around the same time. No-budget stuff. Check it out.



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 09:44 PM
link   
"Im tired of trying to argue with someone so pig headed, and by what you said, I know you didn't do your own research or else you would have considered the possibilities that the big bang strongly shows evidence that it is wrong. It doesn't take someone with a Physics major or doctrine to figure out that the theory is wrong."

For reference, I believed that the theory was wrong for years, but found I that I was a dumba$$ for believing that. It is necessary that you have physics to understand why the theory works. As I've already stated, a number of scientists and methods have already been used to prove most hypothesies about the Big Bang. Just because the perfect answer isn't available doesn't mean we cannot have something very close.


"Trial and Error on what: Earth, a computer, A lab. Please don't take those test literally."

Try satellites, telescopes, laser measurements, and mathematics developed over thousands of years.

"The reason I don't think the big bang is correct is because I considered if it was right, and came to the conclusion that its not right."

So?

"Even you came to the same conclusion as I did, its just that your so hard headed that you yourself don't see the truth."

No, I went the opposite route. I did not believe it until I had sufficient evidence, but again, I'm not going to do the research for you. You are either a scientist or you are a whiner in a subject like this. Take your pick. Even if you take the view of the skeptic, you present no argument to back yourself up.


"You just proved my statement, If the theory was not complete then its not right in the first place."

*sigh* You must not have any knowledge of complex systems. They don't work that way. I'm not even going to bother explaining it to you.

"You just proved that I'm right again, 60% does not make the theory correct, and then you said that the theory could be right 95% with outstanding theories, which is made up of theories upon theories upon theories. No matter what you say, the theory is not right."

It is not a single theory, per se. It is actually hundreds of theories combined. You think in terms of black and white. Life just isn't like that. One day you will understand. No matter what I say, you won't listen until you empty your cup (words of Bruce Lee).

"Even the damn theory itself is based on presuming that the big bang occured in the first place. I think its time for you to review you Physics again, and stop wasting my time with your fantasies of the big bang."

*shakes head in shame* Why did I even try explaining in my lasts few posts? You apparently have no mind to put the puzzle together. I'm sorry for that. Maybe one day we'll have a real discussion on the matter.

"Here's a website that might help you cope with this new info."

Wow, you did a google search and picked up the first site you found with a counter argument. Just so you know, this was not written by a copyrighted author, which makes the work irrelevant, for the most part. Secondly, there are many better counter arguments but you didn't even take the effort to look.


Man, you need to start trying harder. I can't believe you used that site. When I saw it a couple days ago, I thought to myself, "I really hope that guy doesn't try to use this site as a resource." But here we are, with you using the worst argument possible. I can't help but to have lost respect for you. I was really looking forward to you presenting something good, but you are just another guy with no proof and an axe to grind. Come back and talk when you feel you are ready to present something.


One more thing, I have been hard on you because I use to be just like you. I only believed my own, naive views were the answer to everything. I found myself asking a question and presenting a bad argument with no proof. After a friend of mine (who was not a friend at the time) got through tearing me a new one, I found that proof was not hard to obtain and by looking for it I became much more educated. I only hope that my being hard on you can open your eyes to why you need to look harder for the real answers. You must take the first step in looking for those answers. "I can only show you the door, but you must walk through it." - Morpheus

[Edited on 7-7-2003 by Protector]



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 10:27 PM
link   
Protector-

Actually I saw your site and it was the first on yahoo search, don't give me your bulls h it.

You may call me naive, but I do see in colors, and I can see you as a smart a s s that has excepted what he sees in front of him, but doesn't bother to understand the complexity of how much is wrong.

Humans and apes are less than 1% in difference with DNA.

What the hell does that say about your theory, 60% correct, you can only dictate what you think is right, but you can't prove that its right.

I have really hoped that YOU would have presented some arguements other, than "you don't understand" and "your naive".

But I'm not the one thats dillusional on a subject that has more than 50% wrong. To say that 60% is correct is to be premature. I know a lot of this is wrong because it contradicts its own research.

I know all about the study of the big bang, I find it hilarious that you call me a skeptic, if I know the theory inside and out. I see more problems in the big than answers and you ask for research fine. According to the Big Bang theory, some 10 to 20 billion years ago, all of the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg, or plasma ball, consisting of sub-atomic particles and radiation. Nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it got there -- it was just there.




For some equally inexplicable reason, the cosmic egg exploded. As the matter and radiation expanded, so the theory says, it cooled sufficiently for elements to form, as protons and electrons combined to form hydrogen of atomic weight one, and neutrons were subsequently captured to form helium of atomic weight four. Most of the gas that formed consisted of hydrogen. These gases, it is then supposed, expanded radially in all directions throughout the universe until they were so highly dispersed that an extremely low vacuum and temperature existed. No oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, sulfur, copper, iron, nickel, uranium, or other elements existed. The universe consisted essentially of hydrogen gas. Then somehow, we are told, the molecules of gas that were racing out at an enormous speed in a radial direction began to collapse in on themselves in local areas by gravitational attraction. The molecules within a space of about six trillion miles diameter collapsed to form each star, a hundred billion stars somehow collected to form each of the estimated 100 billion galaxies in the universe, and our own solar system formed about five billion years or so ago from a cloud of dust and gas made up of the exploded remnants of previously existing stars. No satisfactory theory exists to explain any of these events, but cosmologists remained firm in their conviction that all of these marvelous events would eventually yield to credible explanations. But now a cruel fate has befallen the grandest theory of all -- the Big Bang theory.



GOT THIS OF A WEBSITE THAT USED TO THINK THE BIG BANG WAS LAGIT.
ENJOY THE READ

Also very recently, the U.S.-European Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT), detecting x-ray emissions, discovered evidence of giant superclusters of quasars on the edge of the universe, supposedly eight to 12 billion light years from the earth.[6] Physicist Paul Steinhardt, of the University of Pennsylvania, states that "This may be the start of the death knell of the cold-dark-matter theory. " Even if this hypothetical matter existed, it still could not explain the existence of these giant clusters of quasars.

If all of this weren't bad enough news for Big Bang cosmologists, results from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) should really make them wish they had gone into some other field. Based on the Big Bang theory, it was predicted that there should exist a background radiation equivalent to a few degrees Kelvin. Sure enough, in 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, radio engineers at Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey, discovered a microwave background radiation of 2.7 K. Evolutionary cosmologists were absolutely delighted. This discovery was considered proof of the Big Bang, and Penzias and Wilson were duly awarded Nobel Prizes. It now appears, however, that the background radiation may turn out to be additional evidence against the Big Bang theory, rather than its proof.

Since the Big Bang theory predicted a homogeneous universe with matter evenly distributed throughout the universe (which it most certainly is not, as described above), evolutionary cosmologists expected that the background radiation would be perfectly smooth. That is, no matter in which direction one looked, the background radiation would be the same. Just as predicted, the background radiation was perfectly smooth. Theorists were delighted, smug in the assurance that this background radiation was the leftover whimper of the Big Bang. Now, however, it turns out that the universe is not homogeneous, but is extremely lumpy, with massive superclusters of galaxies and great voids in space. Thus , if the background radiation is left over from the Big Bang, it should not be smooth, but should be more intense in certain directions than in others, indicating inhomogeneities at the very start of the universe, immediately following the initial moments of the Big Bang. Astronomers thus began to search for differences in the background radiations. All measurements showed it to be perfectly smooth. Thus COBE was launched to an orbit 559 miles above the earth, carrying sensitive instruments to measure the background radiation. Alas, preliminary data from COBE announced in January, show absolutely no evidence of inhomogeneity in the background radiation. It is perfectly smooth.[7]

"No energetic processes, even unknown ones, could have occurred that were vigorous enough to either create the large-scale structures astronomers have observed or stop their headlong motion once created. There is simply no way to form these structures in the 20 billion years since the Big Bang."[8]

Of course, the demise of the Big Bang theory will not discourage evolutionary theorists from proposing other theories. In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies."

Began TO REPLACE THE BIG BANG THEORY.

I don't blame you for thinking your theory was correct, even though its obvious you didn't read the last website I put, even though I read yours.

Its just that your to hard headed for your own good.

Unfortunetely, I was not once like you, I will never be like you, I look at the facts before I say something that I might regret or acknowledge that is wrong.

PEACE.


[Edited on 7/7/2003 by FoxStriker]



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Can anyone tell me where the stuff came from that caused the Big Boom?



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Tyriffic - Read my post above, middle section - That's the so called Big Bang theory.



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Yeah, I've read (have books) about the subject Fox...I agree.

But, my real Q. for those who follow this logic is:

Where did the matter to form the impetus of the expansion they (evo/BB proponents) believe in COME from. It is so simple(too simple) a Q.



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Yep, all presumpsion, no proof, just theories.



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 11:44 PM
link   
"Actually I saw your site and it was the first on yahoo search, don't give me your bulls h it."

My site was a simple site for other people to see where the theory came from. It had no argument purpose other than simple facts. Your site was a sight that presented an argument... a poor one at that. My bull# was meant to be simple, yours was meant to be evidence... that's the difference.

"You may call me naive, but I do see in colors, and I can see you as a smart a s s that has excepted what he sees in front of him, but doesn't bother to understand the complexity of how much is wrong."

So why don't you attempt to explain at least one thing that is wrong. Stop calling me a smart ass and start backing your own ass up. Simple as that. Again, I don't want to do the research for you on this. I often spend a couple hours a day just keeping up with modern research on science and technology.

"Humans and apes are less than 1% in difference with DNA."

Yes, and we are about 4% different than mice. What's your point. Genetic coding is extremely complex and 1% is tens of thousands, if not millions of permeations different... hence why we are so different with such a small difference in DNA.

"What the hell does that say about your theory, 60% correct, you can only dictate what you think is right, but you can't prove that its right."

I choose not to. I'm not a middle man and I'm not your professor, nor do I even think you have earned my respect so that I would want go through years of back issues of magazines and through popular books on the subject just so you can go, "It's wrong!" I'm not wasting my time... frankly, the idea of the Big Bang is old and has been covered to great lengths for anyone to start researching on their own.

"I have really hoped that YOU would have presented some arguements other, than "you don't understand" and "your naive"."

I did, but you skipped right over those in my first few posts. I don't want a bitch fest with you, so I keep it simple and say it how it is. If you want to go back and research the information I gave you, then you'll see it is real science. Choice is yours.

"But I'm not the one thats dillusional on a subject that has more than 50% wrong. To say that 60% is correct is to be premature. I know a lot of this is wrong because it contradicts its own research."

Example?

"I know all about the study of the big bang, I find it hilarious that you call me a skeptic, if I know the theory inside and out."

Any proof at all?

"I see more problems in the big than answers and you ask for research fine. According to the Big Bang theory, some 10 to 20 billion years ago, all of the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg, or plasma ball, consisting of sub-atomic particles and radiation. Nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it got there -- it was just there."

Wow, proof. What's wrong with calling the source of the Big Bang a "cosmic egg?" If you want to get into the "source" argument, you could try to argue God, a previous universe, quantum particle creation (a natural phenomena), or a slue of other lesser known hypothesis. The Big Bang theory is hardly where it came from, it is more along the lines of multiple steps the the universe shows that it is expanding from a centralized location and is still expanding. That is the heart of the Big Bang theory.


"No satisfactory theory exists to explain any of these events, but cosmologists remained firm in their conviction that all of these marvelous events would eventually yield to credible explanations. But now a cruel fate has befallen the grandest theory of all -- the Big Bang theory."

Actually we have the black hole gravitational theory with very strong evidence; you can find a special on this on the Discovery Channel, even. We have red shift showing continued expansion. We have the latest readings of acceleration of galaxies (expanding faster). There is no cruel fate, it is continually be expanded and proven correct. I think I've seen one study that disproved part of the classic view of the Big Bang, but I never said the theory was absolutely perfect, just close. The newer versions are excellent and that is why it is taught in millions of schools today.


"Also very recently, the U.S.-European Roentgen Satellite (ROSAT), detecting x-ray emissions, discovered evidence of giant superclusters of quasars on the edge of the universe, supposedly eight to 12 billion light years from the earth.[6] Physicist Paul Steinhardt, of the University of Pennsylvania, states that "This may be the start of the death knell of the cold-dark-matter theory. " Even if this hypothetical matter existed, it still could not explain the existence of these giant clusters of quasars."

Thank you for proving my point. Read this:

The physicist mentioned

It says:
"The theory proposes that, in each cycle, the universe refills with hot, dense matter and radiation, which begins a period of expansion and cooling like the one of the standard big bang picture. After 14 billion years, the expansion of the universe accelerates, as astronomers have recently observed. After trillions of years, the matter and radiation are almost completely dissipated and the expansion stalls. An energy field that pervades the universe then creates new matter and radiation, which restarts the cycle."

That is just a mix of Big Bang... notice it says, "which begins a period of expansion and cooling like the one of the standard big bang picture.".... and Oscillating Universe theory. The Big Bang should not be thought of as opposing Oscillating Universe theory, in fact, it supports it and is a requirement for it.

Continuing on:
"If all of this weren't bad enough news for Big Bang cosmologists, results from the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) should really make them wish they had gone into some other field. Based on the Big Bang theory, it was predicted that there should exist a background radiation equivalent to a few degrees Kelvin. ... Since the Big Bang theory predicted a homogeneous universe with matter evenly distributed throughout the universe (which it most certainly is not, as described above), evolutionary cosmologists expected that the background radiation would be perfectly smooth."

Yes, this flaw has been overcome quite some time ago with the understanding of Supermassive Black Holes. The mathematics of the Big Bang actually allows for these black holes but many physicists use to deny their existence (including Einstein who proved them) because they were so outrageous.

But going on:
"That is, no matter in which direction one looked, the background radiation would be the same. Just as predicted, the background radiation was perfectly smooth. ...Now, however, it turns out that the universe is not homogeneous, but is extremely lumpy, with massive superclusters of galaxies and great voids in space. Thus , if the background radiation is left over from the Big Bang, it should not be smooth, but should be more intense in certain directions than in others..."

Again, black holes cause what we see as lumpy. The radiation is still at the mercy of gravity, as is expansion from the Big Bang, and thus the curvature of spacetime causes what this report thinks is proof against the Big Bang, which is not the case anymore.

"No energetic processes, even unknown ones, could have occurred that were vigorous enough to either create the large-scale structures astronomers have observed or stop their headlong motion once created. There is simply no way to form these structures in the 20 billion years since the Big Bang."

That is completely inaccurate. Again, supermassive black holes were apparently not considered in this article, but the old version did not have an explanation for why the supermassive structures did form... that does mean the evidence wasn't out there... just that we had not found it.

"In fact, theories based on plasma processes and a revised steady-state theory have already been advanced to replace Big Bang cosmologies."

Began TO REPLACE THE BIG BANG THEORY."

No need for that anymore, is there?

If you don't believe my claims of supermassive black holes, I will provide proof sponsored by Thomas Learning:

csep10.phys.utk.edu...


"I don't blame you for thinking your theory was correct, even though its obvious you didn't read the last website I put, even though I read yours."

See, it was old information. At one time that was a valid counter argument, but today it is old news...

And you thought I couldn't hold my own
.

"Its just that your to hard headed for your own good."

Yeah, the truth makes you that seem that way.

"Unfortunetely, I was not once like you, I will never be like you, I look at the facts before I say something that I might regret or acknowledge that is wrong."

Well, let's see if you learned something today... tell me that website was bad and that admit that supermassive blackholes lend to the Big Bang theory, proving that website wrong, and then admit that the physicist also supports the Big Bang theory in accordance with the oscillating universe theory. Admit to that and I'll admit that you acknowledge that you are wrong.

My final blow to you will be an article from BBC, probably the world's most well known news agency. Please read it carefully so you can see that my information is backed up by credible sources. Thanks:

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 6 2003 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Entropy, or the need for disorder to achieve a more stable energy level probably caused the Big Boom (Big Bang). All thing want to be at a stable energy level (basic chemistry) and to do this particles of all masses spread out and shed their excess energy. The Big Bang is just a really big version of what happens all the time with all particles.

I hope that's easy enough to understand.





 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join