It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Big Bang Theory is Wrong

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Grock
I believe that the universe (like God) always existed

Houston! We have a problem. Let's try out this theory of yours.

X = Some point in the past
N = Now, present time

posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:15 PM
Scientific theories are building blocks for further learning. They often get discarded when new and more detailed information comes along. Science does not have all the answers, but is the search for a better understanding. The Big Bang Theory has been very useful even if evidence points to it's faults. By conducting studies on the BBT we have indeed made new discoveries that add to our understanding. If the questions never get asked, we learn nothing.

Religion is the acceptance of a specific belief, with no regard for evidence.

posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:16 PM

Originally posted by Ionized
reply to post by onthefence81

One doesn't need sources for something one did himself. I suggest you study the history of the big bang, the historical contexts and the people around which it was built. Go back to empirical assumptions and contrast them with the newer set of data from differing physical fields of study. Understanding of plasma will be essential for one to reconnect the original empirical assumptions with more proper mechanisms.

The bb theory is a good all round theory which answers alot of questions im not saying it is right but it is a better theory than those crummy ones listed above which just leave you with more questions. thats my opionion thanks

posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 08:42 PM
reply to post by dbates

excuse me... but there is no such thing as an infinite past. prior to this universe there wasn't time. it didn't exist. time is 13.7 billion years old (approx)

and please, if you can show us a better scientific explanation i'd like to see it.

posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 01:02 PM

Originally posted by Grock
This shows me that you dont realize the origins and implications of the big bang theory. Let me ask you this in response (which answers it entirely), do you know who originated the big bang theory? do you know their religious persuasion?do you know WHY they postulated this idea and the circumstances surrounding it? to call the big bang BS as it relates to religion shows us all just how little most of us know about it. (answer those questions and you will see for yourself that what I say is true)...

If that was true, only scientists who were athiests would believe in it. There's lots of scientists who are Christian who believe in it.

You dont seem to realize that the whole big bang theory is in itself ENTIRELY a religious theory, with very little science involved... again I get a response without the responder having studied what I have laid out before us all (tho I fully agree that its BS as well)...

It can't be a religous theory because it's changing all the time. They tweak it, improve it, add details.

How many times have you seen the 10 commandments in the Bible being edited and corrected and changed? None, right? That's because it's religion and it would be a sin to change a single word or syllable.

Science changes all the time.

no scientific theories are religion? I am so tempted to throw a truckload of websites refuting that, but it seems that when I do, people respond without reading what I have generously presented upon their tables..

Do they know what they're talking about? The ones I read didn't seem to consider anything beyond their own beliefs.

posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 05:19 PM
The BBT doesn't state that the universe was created from nothingness.



posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 06:08 PM

Originally posted by gborchardt

Along with hundreds, maybe thousands, of scientists, I agree with you that the Big Bang Theory (BBT) is totally wrong. It will be known as the most acute embarrassment of 20th Century science. Imagine the explosion of everything out of nothing! The BBT is the most complete contradiction of the First Law of Thermodynamics (matter and the motion of matter neither can be created nor destroyed) ever devised.

Sorry.. Who said the big bang started from nothing?

"first there was nothing.. then bang" is a layman's interpretation of the event, there was something and there wasn't a bang (since there isn't any sound in space).

before the big bang was (according to what we know) a singularity of infinantly small dimensions, in fact I wouldn't august this and argue that the singularity would have to be a pure form of energy void of any dimensions, as if there was no time before the big bang there would have to be nothing to measure distance because if theres distance there time and if both exist then something existed before the big bang.

You (those against the big bang, not you specifically gborchardt) also have to remember than main stream media is catering for an audience that are generally as dumb as a door post, if telling people the big bang theory is true gets them more viewers thats what they will do.

We know better, lets be glad of that.

posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 06:43 PM
And there were nine turtles* and we all asked how? and where did they come from? Big Bang is an extension of relativity which explains a bit more than gravity which was in itself awesome. Be patient, they'll improve it yet... probably with purple turtles.

*Actually there were 27, but boxes and fields got mistaken.

posted on Sep, 22 2007 @ 09:17 PM

Originally posted by redled
And there were nine turtles* and we all asked how? and where did they come from? Big Bang is an extension of relativity which explains a bit more than gravity which was in itself awesome. Be patient, they'll improve it yet... probably with purple turtles.

Actually, it's "elephants all the way down."

I like this variation of the story, and it does point out that "what we don't know can hurt us." Ending it all with "and God did it" kind of puts an end to the quest for knowledge.

Some of us want the turtles (or elephants) named and numbered.

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 02:19 PM
Transcribed from Rutilus Faber 1739:

i. "Moreover, in earnest dire warning you must not confess that this Knowledge is real against the protestations of those who will not believe that man proceeded from The Lord’s Almighty Heavenly presence; condemnant quod non intellegunt - know that only the vanity of the mind may be served in futile argument and such is The Gift that it cannot be taken or given by spoken word alone but awarded only after patient and honourable study of wisdom and so bestowed by The Grace of God."

Read it again and you'll see that it says something other than it appears to say at first glance - that's the trouble with canonical presentation! Well, I'm not going to justify the following response or try to defend it in the least - as the wise man says - so here goes nothing...

Forget God & Religion - the 2 are incompatible and the latter merely a manifestation of the base instinct of mankind to control his environment. God didn't "create" the universe as a progeny of descendancy, rather, God "became" the universe. Don't blame me, I didn't bake it...

So if God "became" the universe, what kind of entity existed before?

ii. "Let me now shew you how wonderfully the divine nature of God was assimilated by all things known to man and so inseparably joined together that they cannot be severed throughout all eternity lest by the work of The Lord in returning to the unveiled form, the Blessed Light that was pure and shone as white and black. The heavens were but nothing set aside the length and breadth of the entirety of God that no measure or reckoning would sum the presence of God the Almighty, that age did not afflict the same, fathomed with no constraint but the infinity of naught."

Pretty good reasoning so far and based in a knowledge of "0" and "∞"!

Alright, so what came after?

iii. "Nevertheless, God’s design was of change and in that first moment all things that may only be known to man as post hoc, by The Lord’s Will, that The Divine Presence did in entirety become as substance and in doing so rendered all manner of artefact known to man. From the immeasurable divine essence did The Lord’s sacrifice spring forth the primordial matter and ordain the ages that man but measure as the passing of seasons and of the longevity of Sol and Luna. That God did bequeath the divine action of change, so that all first created would conjoin and multiply in diversity and magnitude such that man may now divide and reckon those things as earth, air, fire and water does provoke all those with cognition to understand that The Lord is all things, in endless power, glory, majesty, might, and honour."

For all you "G" men out there, "post hoc" is referring to the HORIZON AETERNITATIS (the Sephira II-I). Oh, and note the slightly freaky "The Lord *IS* all things"? OK, so you think it is a bunch of bull... you're probably right, but this was coming from a guy almost 270 years ago. Seems to me he believed in God big time, seems to me he kind of knew about the "big bang", seems to me he had a pretty good idea of what this universe is all about.

Like the man said though, condemnant quod non intellegunt!

EDIT: Yeah, I just had to point one more thing out that is interesting, transcribed as paragraph (ii), "age did not afflict the same" could be taken to mean that RF's understanding was that time did not exist before the "BB" - I guess he didn't know the meaning of universal constant!

[edit on 27-9-2007 by SugarCube]

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 07:06 AM
OK, I do have to earn a living occasionally, but I have transcribed a bit more of our old friend RF. This is quite interesting for its choice of phrase (I thought so anyway):

"Now I task all good men to exhalt God the Almighty as The Undifferentiated Power before all things. In that place without age or location, nor substance or measure, neither wet nor dry, neither earth, nor air, nor fire, nor light, nor darkness, God being before all things, created one Substance from the very being of that most holy presence, Hyle, which we may call the First Matter. Chaos is the first beginning of the first created from an Uncreated Being, that God omnipotent created in the beginning, but before the work of the days it was without shape and also confused. But afterwards all the most sound Philosophers nominated that Essence, the Mother and the first matter of the world, in whose bosom innumerable forms lay hid, which the Omnipotent Builder, that great Spagirus, appointed in time to break forth, for God was as spirit in that Undigested Matter, Chaos, who some have affirmed ought to be called the Soul of the World, some the Form of Forms, others the Proximate Instrument of the Creator. By the benefit of this spirit so included, there is at length by the most free will of God, providing for and overlooking all things, a separation is made of the waters from the waters, by which they were divided. But it is very remarkable, that at the separation of the Chaos, there was a just division, no deperdition, but every particle of the same being full of spirit and life, they are fit for that to which they were ordained, waxing strong and vegetating. That God did nominate the process so is exemplified by the triune in that very essence of nihil is the eternity of all things that may be called the The Undifferentiated Power, that the first of first matter was but chaos as we know and may be called as a singularity, that just division did impart the seed for multiplication that all things shewn be grown.

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 09:44 AM

Houston! We have a problem. Let's try out this theory of yours.

X = Some point in the past
N = Now, present time

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 01:12 PM

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
excuse me... but there is no such thing as an infinite past.

Thank you very much. That's exactly my point. There can be no such thing as an infinite past.

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:53 PM
reply to post by Grock

Hi Grock, although I disagree with you, I like the fact that you're trying to back up your claim with an valid proposition, so with that in mind, your statements deserve a considered response.

Regarding the "Rubak" link, there are some fundemental issues with this argument, the 1st is concerned with the "Problem of size". The argument relies on the fact that it is assumed that "space" is simply 3 dimensional and whether empty or not, exists beyond the scope of the actual matter of the universe. This is not necessarily the case, the concept being that the empty space is also a creation of the BB. The empty space beyond the limit or outer edge of "space" doesn't actually exist in any dimensional sense. Granted, whether this means you go out one side and come in the other is a different matter. This does create other issues of dimensional creation beyond the matter itself (i.e. the whole "universal constants" thing and the speed of light being used to calculate the limit of a vector from the BB epicentre).

The 2nd issue, "Problem of Expanding" is covered by my response to the 1st issue, this is not necessarily a 3 dimensional issue and so the concept of space existing beyond the outer limits of matter is somewhat blurry.

The 3rd issue concerning time is again related to the 1st response, but there is also the issue of time being a univeral constant. This is not necessarily so and I do not mean in a relative sense. Time itself need not be constant and was almost certainly not so at the point of creation of matter. We cannot expect all the rules of physics to have been instantaneously created in one go... now that WOULD be crazy! (Sorry Professor S.)

The 4th issue concerning light assumes that the universe collapses. It needn't do so. Put it this way, it terms of the BB it will either keep expanding or collapse. I've always been a "free beer tomorrow" man myself but this does not mean that the universe will keep getting bigger per se. Even if you disregard the whole heat death thing then there will be a paradox as the universe heads toward an infinite radius at time point infinity because although there universe matter will be a finite mass within a near infinite space it would reach a point of such dissipation that it effectively ceases to exist. I would expect to see a complete breakdown of Newtonian physics at this point - imagine single particles each with an "infinite" space between them... the mass still exists but kind of doesn't, if you see what I mean?

The "Problem of the Edge" proposition is again based on 3 dimensional physics. The edge is, admittedly, a form of horizon but it is not "fact" that the edge of matter is preceded by "space" as we know it. However, there are some interesting truths hidden in there... The statement that the universe is infinite in size at all times requires terms of reference though. Firstly, we cannot state that "empty space" existed prior to the creation of matter. There may have been an instantaneous inversion of "nothingness" to physical space" at the time of creation which would have created infinite empty space that did not exist prior to the insertion of matter into the void. Also, since time (probably) did not exist prior to creation then the concept of dimensional space does not apply to pre-creation empty space, if you see what I mean?

The upshot? The universe was most likely created (hell, I wasn't there, I don't know for fact) and it will cease to exist at some point. Not, I believe as the result of a collapse following standard Newtonian physics (i.e. and nice big crunch) but most likely an inversion that converts the near-infinately spaced matter conclusively back to a stage of zero dimensional existence (if you can grasp that, I'll buy you a drink... maybe) which will instantaneously invert to a point of creation again. Round and round...

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:03 PM
I would just say this bit aswell, if you perceive time as a framework under which everything else is subordinate, there is a principle that indicates that even time has a superior universal constant upon which it is dependant. In a nutshell, compared to the "superior time" (as I shall reference it), the real time that we know and love and that can be a bit bendy sometimes is of such insignificant scalar quantity that it doesn't actually exist as such.

Basically, the universe is created on a periodic basis that exists of finite units of zero superior time and is then instantaneously created again after it is detroyed, which means that it also takes zero superior time.

Errr.... Basically, the universe never gets to exists as such... The good news is, this is only in terms of the existence of the universal creation cycle... I mean, I am writing this and you're reading it, right?

posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 03:06 AM
I understand what the OP is getting at but can I put forward the following observations:

I am not sure that the Big Bang theory is taught as fact but then equally, I don't think that anyone makes enough effort to identify that it is, indeed, a theory and many others of greater or lesser merit exist. I am sure that it is the 'populist' theory as if you asked 100 people to name a universe creation theory that would come out tops. Is the 'big bang' actually taught? It is a good few years since my high school physics but I am pretty sure that this kind of topic is a bit too heavy and too dependent on meta-physical ideas to be taught to high school students. By undergraduate studies of physics, I would expect that you would be able to differentiate this as a theory and would probably be taught about the others as well.

As for it being a religion, I do not agree in the conventional sense (don't see anyone getting rich out of the big-bang
) but if you look at the way it has entered popular culture and therefore becomes an accepted thing you can draw an analogy with religion there.

posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 04:12 AM

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
excuse me... but there is no such thing as an infinite past.

Thank you very much. That's exactly my point. There can be no such thing as an infinite past.

no, you're missing my point.
my point is that time is 13.7 billion years old. prior to that our understanding of time unravels and is invalid.

by saying "infinite past" you're implying time prior to the universe. i'm saying there's no infinite past because the past ends 13.7 billion years ago (give or take)

though i must point out something, you're arguing that the big bang theory is wrong because it must have a prime mover for it to be right...
i don't see why there's a problem
we have yet to discover what the prime mover is, but the theory still holds water.
now you can jump in and say what you want

posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 04:34 AM
i haven't read this entire thread nor do i care to. i read your first post and from it i can't quite see what your trying to say.
i can say your wrong. hell i could make a new post on it. as you've done here. but where is your theory. if you've debunked the bid bang theory you cannot just go back to the flat earth theory and walk away smug...

forwards buddy, think forwards....



oh hang on i can sense another endless list of links and who do jibby crud.

now, maybe your in the matrix.....

i think if you can concieve matter. what it is? gravity, protons, nuetrons, electrons. making atoms. atoms making molecules. the universe is that on 1,000,000,000 : 1 scale.

now that's a theory.....

you got one? CRACK?


posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 05:30 AM

I am actually interested in finding out how many people here subscribe wholeheartedly to the big bang theory and how many of you are willing to drop your assumptions and open your perspectives.

i subscribe whole heartedly to the big bang theory (formally known as inflation theory) because thats what observation dictates,.....

and the moment that observation dictates somthin different, well, thats when i will gladley change my mind...

posted on Oct, 3 2007 @ 08:13 AM
reply to post by 3_Libras

Even a creator needs an creator ... so your are as far as the other theories ..

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in