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.

 

Big Problems with the Big Bang...

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Everything in this universe and everything on this earth is made up of matter and energy. where did it all come from? well evolutionary scientists have come up with a theory called the big bang theory.
it theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly togther and. then, explode/expand outward into hydrogen and helium. This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space (note frictionless, so the outflowing gas cannot slow down or stop to form anything, also the speed at which it started at, is the speed it would remain, since it is frictionless.).
this sounds like something you wold find in a science friction novel. it sounds simple.

according to this theory, in the beginning, there was nothing. no matter. and then nothingness condensed by gravity ( how on earth is there gravity without matter?) and then it exploded/expanded.

so if the there was no matter of space or time before the big bang, then something other than nature would have to create time space and matter.
but we arent talking about the supernatural righit now, that is unthinkable in the field of science.

here are the problems with the big bang theory.

1. a tiny bit of nothing packed together and then exploed to form everthing in the universe we see today? that is a fairytale is I ever heard one.

2. nothingness cannot pack together and form something. it has no way to pack together.

3. a vacuum has no density, it is said that nothingness got very dense and thats why it exploded/expanded.

4. there is nothing to make it explode. no fire and no match. not a chemical explosion, chemicals didnt exist yet. not a nuclear explosion. atoms didnt exist yet. so there is no room for an explosion. so how could it expand without explosion? it cant.

5. there is no way to expand space that does not exist.

6. nothingness cannot produce heat.

the big bang is a big joke.

EC




posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
If "Big Bang Theory" was indeed as you postulate, I'd agree with you.

But it's not. I've never seen anyone (but you) call a nearly infinitely dense singularity "nothingness."

Anyway, for those interested in the actual scientific theory here's some resources from wikipedia and NASA.

According to NASA, a priest actually first proposed the theory in 1927 that has become the dominant scientific theory of the day.

It can certainly be argued against, but not by misquoting it and certainly not by pulling "nothingness" out of one's butt, then proceeding to inaccurately name your butt pickings "big bang theory" for the sole purpose of demonstrating both your own ignorance and an unhealthy love of one's own stink.



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   


But it's not. I've never seen anyone (but you) call a nearly infinitely dense singularity "nothingness."


oh I was just going off of what a 60 something year old man, who think he knows everything, told me. thats all.

just for this thread. I would like the big bang theory presented. Its not that I dont want to go find it myself, I simply want to see which version of the big bang you believe in.


EC



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   

oh I was just going off of what a 60 something year old man, who think he knows everything, told me. thats all.

just for this thread. I would like the big bang theory presented. Its not that I dont want to go find it myself, I simply want to see which version of the big bang you believe in.
EC


Why the **** is this even a thread then? You think some loon yelling in the middle of the streets that we're all sinners and are goin' to hell has any less authority than a "60 something year old man, who thinks he knows everything"? Both have worthless, stupid, ignorant views, with no facts, history lessons, or valid points. Please stop wasting ATS server space for **** like this. stdy up, have some key points/links, and present them in a descent well thought out post. Criminy!



posted on Aug, 14 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
just for this thread. I would like the big bang theory presented. Its not that I dont want to go find it myself, I simply want to see which version of the big bang you believe in.


Some charitable soul may take you up on that, but not me. My strongly held personal beliefs regarding "big" things begin and end with a line from an AC/DC song.

And while it's my belief that my big balls should be held every night, nobody needs to hear that here anymore than they do in a science classroom.

Ideally, a couple of scientific minds could duke it out presenting the scientific theory and scientific arguments against it. As they should in science class as well. But like I said, they'd have to be awfully generous souls. I'd no more stop to try and explain the fundamentals of my occupation to insignificant people trying to wage holy war on it than I would cater to the demands of a tree stump.

[edit on 14-8-2005 by RANT]



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 04:19 AM
link   


Why the **** is this even a thread then? You think some loon yelling in the middle of the streets that we're all sinners and are goin' to hell has any less authority than a "60 something year old man, who thinks he knows everything"? Both have worthless, stupid, ignorant views, with no facts, history lessons, or valid points. Please stop wasting ATS server space for **** like this. stdy up, have some key points/links, and present them in a descent well thought out post. Criminy!


I have already presented my version of the BB. obviously it is the wrong version and apparently there are other versions out there. I simply asked for you to present them to me so that I can know all version of the big bang. I only know of one.


EC

oh and by the way, quit thowing a fit with your ******s.
this is supposed to be an adult like conversation, not like a little kid trying to get his way.



posted on Aug, 15 2005 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I apologize for all adults who don't have the power to not get angry at insignificant, annoying wastes of time. Insted of naming your thread 'Big Problems with the big bang' and attracting people wanting an honest, thought provoking debate, you should have named it 'I don't know anything about the big bang, please teach me', since that's what you're pretty muchy saying in your posts. I'm not wholy going after you alone, your thread just happened to be the 'one' to set me off. Alot of people do it on here.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
Everything in this universe and everything on this earth is made up of matter and energy. where did it all come from? well evolutionary scientists have come up with a theory called the big bang theory.
it theorizes that a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly togther and. then, explode/expand outward into hydrogen and helium.

This is not an accurate explanation of the "Big Bang" theory. It wasn't that 'nothing' gathered itself up, exploded like a physical explosion, and then scatter hydrogen everywhere. The events of inflation effectively erased any information of what happened, if anything, before it, and they've made it very difficult to get at what precisely was going on in the first instants of it. Elements, like hydrogen, formed as the inflation continued and the extremely high energy of specific areas lowered and allowed things like sub-atomic particles to form, just like how freezing water allows ice to form. And then from that eventually hydrogen and the like form. ANd the overwhelming pressence of hydorgen in the universe affirms this. Larger atoms wouldn't form via this process, so most 'stuff' would come together as H and He.
Most importantly, the rammifications and implications of Inflation Theory have been 'confirmed' in high energy experiments and cosmological studies.




This gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space

This is incorrect. The gas did not expand into space as part of the big bang. Space expanded. The Space-Time Continuum itself is what is expanding in the 'Big Bang', its not just that some dense matter, already in a vast but completely empty space, flew apart and spread out.





1. a tiny bit of nothing packed together and then exploed to form everthing in the universe we see today? that is a fairytale is I ever heard one.

Explain why in such a way that deals with the scientific evidence for Inflation theory. Personal Disbleif is not particularly meaningful. I wouldn't beleive that electrons orbit nucleii of protons and neutrons in quantum orbitals if it wasn't for the evidence presented for just that.


2. nothingness cannot pack together and form something. it has no way to pack together.

The big bang does not claim that non-existence nothingness 'compacted' and magically turned into matter. As far as I know, Inflation theory has no answer for why there is 'something' instead of 'nothing'. No one does. Saying 'because god made it' isn't much of an answer.


3. a vacuum has no density, it is said that nothingness got very dense and thats why it exploded/expanded.

No, it is not said that nothingness got dense and then exploded/expanded. You are basing your understanding of Inflation Theory on a 'popular' conception of it.


I have to note that all of your listed problems with the big bang are that it doesn't answer why there is 'something', instead of 'nothing'.

Inflation, in all honesty, doesn't really try to answer that. Inflation is based upon making observations of the universe around us and its properties and characteristics and trying to get at how it's gotten to that why. Why are there galaxies instead of a diffuse distribution of stars without order? Why is there a cosmic background microwave radition? Etc etc. Inflation Theory does not try to answer the ancient and so far unanswered 'why is there somthing rather than nothing' question. Perhaps, indeed, that is a strictly metaphysical question, and thus unanswerable by science.


I simply asked for you to present them to me so that I can know all version of the big bang. I only know of one.

Here is a paper on Inflation Theory.
Inflation: Theory and Evidence

Here is a google scholar search for the relevant terms with lots of papers on the various aspects and lines of research surrounding Inflation.

Here is a webpage that describes some aspects of the theory.


I think that things like 'brane theory' and 'string theory' and the like are sometimes seen as competeing with Inflation and the Big Bang and other times as being possible explanations of them. I don't know if you want to start researching them also, especially if you've already determined that they are, on the face of it, wrong. It'd be a heck of a lot of work to go thru these things to try to come up with a rationale of why they are wrong.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Chaos into order / Order into Chaos...

Let's look at the bigger picture here.... if that is at all possible as the universe is a pretty big place....

Before you can understand about how something can come from nothing you have to understand about Zero Point energy.

Most people would say that you can't get something for nothing... Even our so called basic laws of physic state you can't get out more than you put in... but guess what??

Science has it all wrong...

You CAN get out more and you put in and in fact our entire existence relies on that fact.

Have you ever noticed that in NATURE nothing and I do mean nothing is ever symmetrical or perfectly ordered or even?

Have you noticed that our human interpretation of the universe finds beauty in the ordered, in the symmetrical?

The single truth about the universe that we know is simply this... CHANGE. change means movement and it is movement that creates our experience of TIME.

Time doesn't actually exist in the way we interpret it. You see we are travelling through the universe right now as we speak just like zooming in on a fractal. So Time is only our experience of moving through the universe and not a measurement of events that happen.

Without movement there can be no time and no big bang.


Now the real question should be not how did the universe begin because that can never be known for sure... but the question should be how can I view the universe in it's true form.

Only then can we begin to understand who and what we are.

NeoN HaZe.



posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   
.
In my brash novice way i will add to the dialogue.

I just read some of Green's book about inflation.
some incredible stuff.
By some estimates the 26 billion lightyear visible sphere is to the entire Universe as a grain of sand is to the earth.
Not only is the Universe inconcievably Huge it is inconcievably, inconcievably HUGE. That is a whole lot of nothing.

As the higgs field hits the value(s) that cause reverse gravity it expands space like Kabam in a microfraction of a second. It can begin inflation with as little as twenty pounds of matter.

It also seems to indicate that inflation can happen in a micro-local area of an existing Universe that hits the right higgs field level so it becomes like a polyp growth. So you end up with a node Universe that inflated from a node Universe that inflated from a node Universe . . . .

If you look at it that way in a sense there may be no beginning of it.
It could simply be this aspect of an infinite continuum.
.



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Here we go


  1. It is still only a theory.
  2. There are other possibilities about our creation.
  3. Maybe dark matter has something to do with it.
  4. There is a whole load of physics which man doesn't have and we can't explain certain things.


Lastly, everyone calm down. And whatever you do, don't believe Dan Brown in "Angels and Demons" it's not even a very good book.

[edit on 17-8-2005 by mashup]



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   
what I am trying to do is get people to give me the different version of the big bang. there are , apparently different versions of the big bang, because whenever I present it to someone, they say," thats not how the theory goes, you got it all messed up." the one taught in the textbooks goes something like this:

about 20 billions years ago, all the matter in the universe was gathered and compressed into a region, no bigger than the period at teh end of this sentence.
and then it spun faster and faster. then one day, it exploded.
4.6 billions years ago, the earth was formed and it was a hot mass. then millions of years of rain made the oceans and a rocky surface was created.
and then it ends with this...
about 3.4 billion years ago, complex chemicals were swirling the chemical soup and the soup came alive and then evolved into everything we see today of millions of years.

apparently there are different versions to that theory, that is the one
I learned in school and is the same thing that many others have learned in school. im just looking for all of the other versions.


EC



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
about 20 billions years ago, all the matter in the universe was gathered and compressed into a region, no bigger than the period at teh end of this sentence.
and then it spun faster and faster. then one day, it exploded.

I think that you've already been given some papers on inflation and the big bang.




4.6 billions years ago, the earth was formed

This has nothing to do with the big bang or inflation and is an entirely different subject.




im just looking for all of the other versions.

There aren't other 'versions' strictly. There are some variations on inflation and the like, but they are different, as far as I know, in rather technical details. The description presented above is a very standardized, non-technical-language description. A very 'hand waving' version at that too.

Generally, textbooks are good for teaching the basics of these kinds of things. If a person wants to really research and question these things, textbooks aren't useful for that purpose, they weren't designed for it. Its like reading a set of instructions to build a model airplane, you can be really good at it, but that doesn't mean one is an aircraft engineer or pilot. So be wary of textbooks if you aren't being tested on the subject in school.

This set of pages looks like a good set of explanations and discussions on it. Here's a somewhat garbeled selection:

The Big Bang Model rests on two theoretical pillars: [...]A key concept of General Relativity is that gravity is no longer described by a gravitational "field" but rather it is supposed to be a distortion of space and time itself[...]That is, the matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when averaged over very large scales. This is called the Cosmological Principle.[...]Given a law of gravity and an assumption about how the matter is distributed, the next step is to work out the dynamics of the universe - how space and the matter in it evolves with time. The details depend on some further information about the matter in the universe, namely its density (mass per unit volume) and its pressure (force it exerts per unit area), but the generic picture that emerges is that the universe started from a very small volume, an event later dubbed the Big Bang, with an initial expansion rate.



Interestingly, the page has these cautions:

Please avoid the following common misconceptions about the Big Bang and expansion:

  1. The Big Bang did not occur at a single point in space as an "explosion." [...]That region of space that is within our present horizon was indeed no bigger than a point in the past. Nevertheless, if all of space both inside and outside our horizon is infinite now, it was born infinite. If it is closed and finite, then it was born with zero volume and grew from that. In neither case is there a "center of expansion" - a point from which the universe is expanding away from.
  2. It is beyond the realm of the Big Bang Model to say what gave rise to the Big Bang. There are a number of speculative theories about this topic, but none of them make realistically testable predictions as of yet.



Here is another page on it:


When Einstein formulated the general theory of relativity, he found that it was incompatible with a static universe; the equations predicted that the universe must either be expanding or shrinking. [...]Extrapolating this expansion backwards, we find that at a specific time in the past the universe would have been infinitely dense[...]The big bang model has been extremely successful at explaining known aspects of the universe and correctly predicting new observations. Nonetheless, there are certain problems with the model. There are several features of our current universe that seem to emerge as strange coincidences in big bang theory. Even worse, there are some predictions of the theory that are in contradiction with observation. These problems have motivated people to look for ways to extend or modify the theory without losing all of the successful predictions it has made. In 1980 a theory was developed that solved many of the problems plaguing the big bang model while leaving intact its basic structure. More specifically, this new theory modified our picture of what happened in the first fraction of a second of the universe's expansion. This change in our view of that first fraction of a second has proven to have profound influences on our view of the universe and the big bang itself. This new theory is called inflation.[...]
An element is defined by the number of protons in a nucleus—one for hydrogen, two for helium, and so on. For roughly three minutes after the big bang the temperature of the universe was so high that protons and neutrons couldn't bind together into nuclei; the particles all had so much energy that the forces that hold nuclei together were too weak to make them stick to each other. Thus for those first three minutes the only element in the universe was hydrogen, i.e. single protons not bound to anything else. (A neutron with no proton is not considered an element.) As the universe expanded and cooled it eventually reached a temperature where the protons and neutrons could bind together, and different elements were formed. The formation of these nuclei from their constituent particles (i.e. protons and neutrons) is known as nucleosynthesis. Nuclear theory is well tested and understood. By applying it to a homogeneous, expanding medium at high temperature we can predict what relative abundances of different elements should have emerged when these nuclei were formed in the early universe. It turns out that only the three lightest elements, hydrogen, helium, and lithium, would have been able to form at that time. All of the heavier elements were formed much later in stars, and currently make up a tiny percentage of the matter we see in the universe. The predictions of the relative abundances of these light elements accurately match the observational data. This match is particularly important because it strongly suggests that the big bang model is an accurate description of the universe at least as far back as nucleosynthesis, i.e. three minutes after the predicted moment of the big bang. All of the other evidence for the theory, such as the microwave background and the motions of distant galaxies, relate to the universe at much later times, so we have no direct evidence for the accuracy of the big bang model before nucleosynthesis.


Haven't read the whole of that paper, but it looks like its a good description so fars anyway.


Also, here is a neat little slide presentation on some of these subjects.


And here is an interseting consideration of the physics of the big bang and some of its philosophical implications



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Hi All,

As no-one commented on my zero point energy (ZPE) post earlier in this thread I thought I would post a link for further information visit HERE

This should give you an idea of how the so called nothing can produce something.

However bear in mind Nygdan's post, as this information is also very good to get a basic understanding of BB and Expansion theory.

There is however another view of how our universe came into being. M-theory or String theory predicts that the universe is a multidimensional membrane floating around in some medium. There are according to this theory other membranes in this medium and when membranes collide the resulting energy is converted to mass.

I think that is hard for a lot of people to get their head around. but in a nutshell the Big Bang as we refer to it maybe more literal than we had first thought.

You see in the first moments of the big bang was a war between matter and Anti-matter annihilating each other. However there appears to have been more matter than anti-matter or the universe would have fizzled out before it had even expanded beyond the size of a grape....

Now as I mentioned in my earlier post nothing is ever even, nothing is ever symmetrical so it is not difficult to understand that there was an uneven mix of matter / Anti-matter.

The Biggest mystery of our time has come down to the continued speed up of the universes expansion. What could cause this? Well Einstein struggled with that one, and even originally entered it into his equations only later to take the theory out again saying "it was the single biggest mistake"
However what we now think is that this so called speed up is possibly down to the so called dark energy..

What is dark energy I hear you say?? Well if we knew that for certain then we would have become a Class III CIV and would be travelling around our universe in a blinking of an eye....

Seriously though.. What could dark energy be?? Well some people say it is Rest energy or the energy that is stored in matter that is somehow being released into the universe and causing an expansion... I was having a debate about this very subject yesterday and we concluded that if that was the case then the universe would rather than come to a point of a BIG RIP, then all mater would simply evaporate and what would be left is a universal sea of energy.... now what came before the Big bang?? Perhaps a universal sea of energy...... Hence my original post Chaos into Order / Order into Chaos...

could we be in a never ending cycle of Creation and Annihilation?


One further thought provoking point... We have evidence to suggest that the so-called cosmological constant Einstein’s C in E=MC2 is actually not so constant as he and we once believed. The constant has changed and thus mean that light speed has changed and that for obvious reasons has some quite startling consequences. But I will leave that for a different debate...

Good Thinking People.

NeoN HaZe.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Neon Haze
However bear in mind Nygdan's post, as this information is also very good

This shoudl be the new board motto. Things would be easier for everyone that way!



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
well evolutionary scientists have come up with a theory called the big bang theory.


Read this will ya:


The Big Bang theory was originally developed in the late 1920s by Georges-Henri Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest and astronomer, an early advocate of solutions to the general relativity field equations which predicted our universe was expanding. (For cosmological theories to be taken seriously, they must pose possible solutions to Einstein's general relativity field equations.) Though the expanding-universe solution to the field equations was derived by the Russian cosmologist Alexander Friedman in 1922, Lemaître was the first to realize that a continuously expanding universe implies that at some point in the past the universe must have been much denser and smaller, even atom-sized.


Invented by Evolutionists? Yeah right ...
The Big Bang theory is a theory which rests on observational findings and logic.
An expanding universe would imply that at 1 point it started as a point.

What I find so intriguing is that the Catholic church, although loathed and hated by christian churches in the US and Creationists all over the place, they seem to be the only ones that do adjust their teachings to modern day and wish for humanity to go forward instead of backward to the dark ages.


[edit on 19/8/05 by thematrix]
[edited coding, change 'code' to quote, i like codes too, but they destroy the formating of the page - nygdan]

[edit on 19-8-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
just because someone is catholic does not mean that is what they believe in. supposedly hitler was a catholic, but he went out and killed a bunch of people for no reason whatsoever, and killing is against the 10 commandments unless you have justification such as a war, or fighting for your freedom. there was nothing wrong with the jews, they didnt do anything. the same with stalin and pol pot.

I also think that the catholic religion is lost in their own beliefs as well as mislead by many of the religious leaders, thats just my opinion.

and it doesnt matter who thought of it what matters is who uses it and supports it.

EC



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
just because someone is catholic does not mean that is what they believe in. supposedly hitler was a catholic, but he went out and killed a bunch of people for no reason whatsoever, and killing is against the 10 commandments unless you have justification such as a war, or fighting for your freedom. there was nothing wrong with the jews, they didnt do anything. the same with stalin and pol pot.

But he was a priest, as well as a scientist. Hitler was neither.



I also think that the catholic religion is lost in their own beliefs as well as mislead by many of the religious leaders, thats just my opinion.

no comment




and it doesnt matter who thought of it what matters is who uses it and supports it.
EC

Not a bad idea, but unfortunately, to some people the scientific community is nothing and their research, legacy means nothing because it isn't in some book that has been edited and re-edited over the last 2000 years. Then these people who have no knowledge and are scientifically illiterate regurgitate absurd and completely false rhetoric and smear the work of the scientists.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 10:31 AM
link   


some book that has been edited and re-edited over the last 2000 years.

not edited, but tanslated. not edited. there are different version by people who tried to add and take away from the bible and I am aware of those versions. but the bible was written by God through man that was inspired by God to write his word.

and there are many things in the bible that can be explained with science.

but no one has yet answered my request. someone tell me what the big bang is, in short. give me the most up to date version of the big bang that is most commonly used and most agreed on.

EC

[edit on 20-8-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
and it doesnt matter who thought of it what matters is who uses it and supports it.
]
What should matter is the evidence and a logical rational analysis of it.

Anyway, scientists are the ones who 'use and support' the 'big bang theory', whether they are chemists, physicists, etc etc. Its got nothing to do with evolutionary biologists specifically.


not edited, but tanslated. not edited

No, edited. There are even copies of older gospels that have whats called 'marginal notes', written by the scribes. In later copies these notes become part of the text. Besides, the very assembly of the bible is a type of editing. There were numerous gospels, many were rejected to make the old bible. Then the protestants edited the bible once again, removing even more books. Hell, the deists, like jefferson, edited out most of the 'hocus pocusy' type stuff from the bible too.


and there are many things in the bible that can be explained with science.

It'd be rather hard to make a book that couldn't be no? Of course, things like the Flood, etc etc, can't be explained by science.



someone tell me what the big bang is, in short. give me the most up to date version of the big bang that is most commonly used and most agreed on.

If I gave it to you now, it would be the third time in this thread alone.

What is insufficient in the answers I have given you?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join