Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

what caused the big bang?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 12:14 AM
link   
All condensending remarks aside, I find when two differing opinions of the 'theory' collide. Makes for interesting reading.




posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 12:48 AM
link   
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.
-------------------------------------------------------

So Basically, you don't want to answer my question, when you say im not your professor or do your own research you don't answer anything, you just avoid the question at hand, and I do have valid arguements, you just got to look past your cockiness to see them.

If you don't want to answer the question just say so, don't bring up some bullsh it excuse about " I choose not to"



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.


I did, just that RobertBurns got to them first and he basically answered those. Whats the point in me repeating what has to be said. He did add his own twist to the theory, *giving props to RobertBurns*

I know a lot of this is wrong because it contradicts its own research."

-...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..."

YOU bring in Supermassive Black Holes to try to help you in the last moment, its not going to happen. I happen to know that they are still working on that theory itself. I went to your website and saw that its outdated. I'll give you another there website that shows how much that theory is changing

www.cnn.com...

Such black holes are thought to be common in young galaxies, where the matter gobblers have plenty of material to satisfy their voracious appetites.

But astronomers presumed such dynamic black holes were rare in older galaxies, their supplies of gas and dust presumably depleted over the eons.

"This changes our view of galaxy clusters as the retirement homes for old and quiet black holes," astronomer Paul Martini said last week

Science, ever changing, you basically stated that a theory about black holes is now into play, Interesting, I see that after reading your website, the big bang was never mentioned, maybe thats because it was abandoned and a new theory has emerged.

I don't really remember saying that the Supermassive Black Hole theory was incorrect. Its the big bang that I got a problem with.

Ill leave you with this, If the Supermassive Black Hole theory is correct (The immense gravity of a giant black hole MIGHT trigger the gas to collapse in the first place. By churning up the gas around it, a giant black hole would trigger the birth of stars, planets and life itself).

Then the Big Bang theory is wrong, ( 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)

Only one theory can be right, there is no inbetween.

ONE AGAINST THE OTHER. Their both HYPOCRITICAL AND CONTRARY to each other

Thank you for proving MY POINT

Until we meet again
Peace



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Everything was put into motion by sound. All it took was one wave, to disrupt the pool of the unknown.



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 12:58 AM
link   
Haso, Grasshopper san, your wise words are true.
Let us Kung Fu Fight, *karate stance*

Osaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaiyaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

*trip and brake my leg*

[Edited on 7/7/2003 by FoxStriker]



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 01:09 AM
link   
*Greets you with a Zanjin Shinjinken-Ryu Kata*

Correction, Striker-San.

Address me as, Daisensei.

*Mearly nods slightly*



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Well, now that you've started trying, I guess I can refute more of your misconceptions.

"So Basically, you don't want to answer my question... and I do have valid arguements, you just got to look past your cockiness to see them."

You're right, if you don't present information with you "talk" then I don't want to answer. Since you are now using information, we can discuss this. Whether your arguments are valid or not have yet to be seen... let's hope they become more apparent.

I"f you don't want to answer the question just say so, don't bring up some bullsh it excuse about " I choose not to""

"I choose not to" is a good way of saying, "I don't want to answer the question," don't you think? Oh well, on to your arguments.

"I did, just that RobertBurns got to them first and he basically answered those. Whats the point in me repeating what has to be said. He did add his own twist to the theory, *giving props to RobertBurns*"

Robert Burns did not have a sound argument (true beliefs and right reasons for those who don't know what a sound argument is). His answers were far from correct and you should have realized that when I disproved his post shortly after. Anyway, we should deal with the stuff at hand.


"YOU bring in Supermassive Black Holes to try to help you in the last moment, its not going to happen."

Last moment? This is not a race. Supermassive Black Holes are becoming an important facet of astronomy. Yes I am going to bring them in, because if you actually read through my article you'd have read this:

"Exactly how our galaxy was created has mystified astronomers and physicists for years. Although there have been many theories, there's little evidence to explain how the gas in the early Universe condensed to form the galaxy we see today. Now scientists realise they've been missing a vital ingredient - a supermassive black hole. The immense gravity of a giant black hole might trigger the gas to collapse in the first place. By churning up the gas around it, a giant black hole would trigger the birth of stars, planets and life itself. Despite being the most destructive thing in the Universe, scientists now think our supermassive black hole could be crucial in creating the galaxy as we know it."


I believe you used the argument that we did not have evidence for such things as supermassive objects like stars and planets... I was just showing simple proof that refutes it... proof you also believe.

"I happen to know that they are still working on that theory itself. I went to your website and saw that its outdated. I'll give you another there website that shows how much that theory is changing"

It isn't changing. If you read the whole website and have actually been following the research, you'd realize that the supermassive blackholes have a lot of evidence for what their importance are in a galaxy (and its formation). The medium sized black holes were just further proof that supermassive black holes were developed using a logical method (black holes consuming other black holes and matter to become larger).


"But astronomers presumed such dynamic black holes were rare in older galaxies, their supplies of gas and dust presumably depleted over the eons."

Well, then those astronomers are idiots. The longer you give them to feed, the longer they will feed. The black hole isn't going to decrease in size just because their is less for it to gobble on... it just isn't going to get that much bigger.

"This changes our view of galaxy clusters as the retirement homes for old and quiet black holes," astronomer Paul Martini said last week"

Well, before we approach that, let's look at what you didn't post from that article:

"In another cosmic search with unforeseen results, scientists using the Chandra X-ray Observatory in space and the Carnegie telescope in Chile detected six times more active supermassive black holes than expected in a cluster of aging galaxies. "

Yes, older galaxies have more supermassive black holes because they've had more time to feed. Galaxies have so much matter from birth that even the old ones still have enough matter to support a number of supermassive black holes. That doesn't seem odd to me, does it to you? If anything, that comes with the territory of the original idea that they existed.

"Science, ever changing, you basically stated that a theory about black holes is now into play"

Absolutely. This is necessary astronomy for a Big Bang theory.

"I see that after reading your website, the big bang was never mentioned, maybe thats because it was abandoned and a new theory has emerged."

The website presents evidence that refutes your previous argument. I don't care if it says BIG BANG by name, the counterargument just proves the original argument wrong. There is no new theory, there is only the basic findings of astronomy.

"I don't really remember saying that the Supermassive Black Hole theory was incorrect. Its the big bang that I got a problem with."

Right... we're on the same page... you like supermassive black holes, but not the Big Bang.

"Ill leave you with this, If the Supermassive Black Hole theory is correct ... Then the Big Bang theory is wrong"

Why's that?


"Only one theory can be right, there is no inbetween."

Since when? Theories are often combined to create a better working theory. What do you think the Big Bang theory is? Do you think it is still the exact same thing it was in 1927? No. I've already explained that. It is a dynamic theory with a lot of information behind it. Today it has more support than ever.

"ONE AGAINST THE OTHER. Their both HYPOCRITICAL AND CONTRARY to each other"

What is? Supermassive black holes forming galaxies is something that happens after a big bang and still allows for the expansion we see today. Are you still not seeing that? Have you never seen the timeline for the Big Bang?

"Thank you for proving MY POINT"

Ok, and what point was that?



Well, to give you a bit more proof, here is another website through NASA that does link supermassive black holes with the Big Bang:

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...


Unless you also believe that you are smarter than the High Energy Astronomer at NASA, I suggest you find yet another angle with which to argue your futile viewpoints from.

"-- Michael Loewenstein and Amy Fredericks for "Ask a High-Energy Astronomer"" ... the astronomer's names, just incase you thought I was kidding.



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 01:34 AM
link   
*Performs Iron Horse Kata*

"Sound.

Everything was put into motion by sound. All it took was one wave, to disrupt the pool of the unknown."


That is actually a fairly relavent theory that I've heard on a couple separate occasions. "Sound" is caused as a friction of sorts and symbolized the change and release of energy. This idea still does not refute the Big Bang.



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Hai-ya/kiai

*Performs Iron Horse Kata*

"Sound.

Everything was put into motion by sound. All it took was one wave, to disrupt the pool of the unknown."


That is actually a fairly relavent theory that I've heard on a couple separate occasions. "Sound" is caused as a friction of sorts and symbolized the change and release of energy. This idea still does not refute the Big Bang.

Take a chill pill



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 02:04 AM
link   
FoxStriker stop acting like the child you are.

And I don't mean that in a bad way, I could have sworn you mentioned somwhere you were still in High School or just graduated...

Anyways, grow up.

Protector is 100% correct about Time being the 4th Dimension.

In fact, Einstein's theorys of Relativity stand VERY well, and thus holds further concurance that time is the 4th dimension.

However I myself have often thought is time just the 4th dimension, or the 3rd dimension's passage through it.

As if the 3rd dimension was created from nothing some 15 billion years ago, passing through the 4th to create what we call...Time...

Either way, dimensions are mathematical concepts using variables to find answers.

When you add a fourth dimension "x,y,z,a" would be an example of a four dimensional equation's variables (correct protector?), you can do math that deals with predicting Time or Time's effects on things in the universe.

Basically anyways.

And that's all dimensions are, if you want to be philosophical then dimensions are all in our minds.

Can you honestly stand there and tell me there are 3 dimensions?

What you say is up down forwards backwards left and right, I say are all fantasies in your mind, perceptions of your mind that tell you you are moving, when in actuallity you are not.

Math tells us a more real perspective of our universe, Philosophy helps us understand why it's the way it is...



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Robert, you know that you just contradicted yourself- if you agree, why are you having trouble understanding the theory yourself. As stated by you
"However I myself have often thought is time just the 4th dimension, or the 3rd dimension's passage through it."

God, I have never heard such a stupid coment in my life. If its 100% correct, why are you argueing it. YOU JUST ARGUED YOUR OWN COMMENT

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Protector is 100% correct about Time being the 4th Dimension.

In fact, Einstein's theorys of Relativity stand VERY well, and thus holds further concurance that time is the 4th dimension.

However I myself have often thought is time just the 4th dimension, or the 3rd dimension's passage through it.

As if the 3rd dimension was created from nothing some 15 billion years ago, passing through the 4th to create what we call...Time...
---------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Get it?

you yourself put that dimensions and time are two different fields.

I think its time you grow up, and pay closer attention to what you write.


[Edited on 7/7/2003 by FoxStriker]



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 02:49 AM
link   
"When you add a fourth dimension "x,y,z,a" would be an example of a four dimensional equation's variables (correct protector?), you can do math that deals with predicting Time or Time's effects on things in the universe."


I don't do 4th dimensional equations. That's actually the job of mathematicians. Mathematicians are great at doing math, but not as good at applying it as physicists. In other words, we discover more stuff with less background in math than the mathematicians. We play with the big, expensive instruments while they crunch numbers. Well, we crunch numbers a whole lot too.

Yes, the extra variable will stand for the extra dimension which allows for a number of additional possibilities, including time. If you want specific answers, there are math websites that can present more detailed information.



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Excuse me "expansion into nothingness" is in relation to physical dynamics. Not Time.

Time being the 4th dimension would be not so much a "physical expansion" as it would be "speed/time", or speed divided by time.

So our "velocity" a mathematical constant changing at a constant rate as we know, is the set for the passing of time.

Which is that speed in the 4th dimension.

I'd expect something like that to go over your head, but then not all of us are just born dimensionalists...

Let me try and spell it out for you in literary imagery.

Some time 15billion years ago, nothingness exploded into "something".

A God-like action.

Now, there suddenly were fabrics of space.

1st dimension, a point.

2nd dimension, a line.

3rd dimension, a square.

now you are thinking, woah wait a minute...1st is line and so on to cube.

Well I'm defining it in terms of being there.

A one dimensional being would only see a point should another line pass through his existance.

A two dimensional being would only see a line, and so on.

A third only sees 2 dimensionally (we seeing stereoscopically but not 3 dimensionally).

So now we have some definitions here...the 4th dimension.

Well picture a square expanding in a cube...we in the square would see an every increasing LINE...

Our expansion into the 4th dimension, is felt by us as 3rd dimensional beings, as Time.

Now if we were 4th dimensional beings, we would know past present and future and would in effect, never progress through time...we would be...all times.

Now this allows options for a few things. First rules.

Rule #1: The passage of time is dependant on motion.

(This is proven by Relativity, where the faster you go the slower time progresses.)

Rule #2: To travel to the "past" you would have to have all the energy in the universe, in order to return the universe back to the point in time it was at that time.

Not a simple, jump back, but rather an opposite velocity that we are at at this moment.

Rule #3: Time is incrimental and must be tied to quantum mechanics.

Blah blah...I can probably go on with more but not going to think too deeply in my own theory at the moment.

However, as you can see I have not contridicted myself.

For you claim I said "we are expanding into time//We can't be expanding into nothingness" or whatever.

When in actuallity my theory still is not dependant on expansion as much as speed and time.

You don't need to be moving to have "speed" speed is simply the passage of time at a certain interval.

Going back to Relativity theroy.

In a sense, I'm simply taking Einstein's theory's of Space//Time and collapsing it into more of "Time" and Space is a mathematical mechanism dependant on the passage of time.

That passage of time would be what we see as "speed", not the tick tocks on a clock.

(I just came up with the last bit but worthy of discussion for further analysis and revision).



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 06:42 AM
link   
Protector, after much research I have found some documentation on Time Theories by none other then Proffessor FoxStriker. Here's a link to his informative thesis (theory).

Fox Strikers most likely theory involving time.

Clearly a major or doctorate in therotical physics is needed to understand this heavy theory.

Only one question from this lay man. How does a person exist here as well as in a Black hole.

Only you here are educated enough to answer this.

Protectors posting gets the
from me.

As to the stuff that existed before the big bang, wasn't this the quark that that guy Kip thought of, that actually make up particle. And arent they not actually matter as such but a type of 'wave' energy, hence the entropy theory of the occurance of the big bang. Sorry just thinking this up on the fly. So I might be wrong. No doubt I will be told, might go now and research it.

Not bad in its simplicity, I think for a builder. Sorry no post or undergradurate studies here.

[Edited on 7-7-2003 by Maddas]

[Edited on 7-7-2003 by Maddas]



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Hehe... I like pie. The pie analogy is actually a simple attempt on how to understand relativity. All points in space (masses) have their own relativistic view of the universe and applying chaos effects by that principle is how (in general terms) we get the oddness of matter-matter interactions to this day.

Time is an aspect of relativity. Don't confuse relativity as being an aspect of time. I believe if one assumes the latter, time is the cause of problems between mass particles, but I believe it is more along the lines of entropy where being close allows for over excitement and higher information flow between the particles. Think of it as being a traffic jam, not the fact that time forced people together to cause the traffic jam. Time just occurs as a result of quantified motion and shows that the traffic jam happened at a particular time. I don't think time should be assumed to exist as a force. Of course, I could be wrong. That would be getting into an area I'm not overly familiar with.

Anyway, that's my view on the theory. You are basically telling yourself that relativity exists.




"As to the stuff that existed before the big bang, wasn't this the quark that that guy Kip thought of, that actually make up particle. And arent they not actually matter as such but a type of 'wave' energy, hence the entropy theory of the occurance of the big bang. Sorry just thinking this up on the fly. So I might be wrong. No doubt I will be told, might go now and research it."

Well, what the "cosmic egg" was composed of actually changes from scientist to scientist. It wasn't really anything that we know of today. It was just a strange, compact "thing" that blew up according to the laws of physics. I personally don't support any particular view on what that "cosmic egg" was. I'm not certain that anyone can say for sure at this point.

To be honest, and very dorky, I like the idea of the Omega particle from Star Trek Voyager. It is an extremely complex, living particle that is extremely unstable. I rather think of it as a singularity of sorts, but again, no one really knows what it was.

[Edited on 7-7-2003 by Protector]



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 06:08 PM
link   
Protector - like I mentioned yesterday, I got a problem with the big bang not the submassive black hole theory.

After a while of debating with you, I see that you and I may differ in a couple of subjects. But believe the same things through different viewpoints. Although I admit that I believe many theories that don't quite have to do with modern Physics or Quantum Physics. Maybe its me, but although you called me naive, I don't quite see myself as naive, just that I believe that much of which is being taught is wrong. Thats it, Simple and plain.


But this time without the slander. Just the main arguements.



posted on Jul, 7 2003 @ 07:39 PM
link   
It is always good to be a bit of a skeptic, but don't feel bad for daring to put your faith into an idea that is well developed. No one says any theory is unbreakable. The chances on breaking them, however, would be about as likely as cows flying over your bed when you wake up tomorrow morning. See as I care for your safety, I hope these theories are able to stay in tact and evolve to be even more encompassing so that one day there will be little doubt what should be taught in schools.



posted on Jul, 10 2003 @ 02:44 PM
link   
The following site has a mock up of many of the aspects linked to the Big Bang. This is from a CERN website, for all you aspiring particle physicists.

Enjoy


P.S. It has some interesting pictures, too.



posted on Jul, 10 2003 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I concur Tyriffic. Although I believe in the theory of evolution (you don't? look at the flu) and the Big Bang Theory, I also know these things did not just happend. They must have started somewhere...or prompted by someone.






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join