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.

 

TIME and the Big Bang - Is it all we got?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 03:47 PM
link   
The most accepted, most irrefutable, most reliable and most widely accepted and most SCIENTIFIC theory of the origins of everything in the universe. Including the origin of TIME?

Is this the best we've got? Is it even proofable? Did TIME originated when Big Bang happened? Must be, because beyond Big Bang, scientists can't tell us what causes and what's before the big bang.

Is it topical now to also include "Chaos Theory"? Cause in chaos theory, you don't need to have a beginning nor an end, sort of a convinient way to explain away almost anything.

Consistency in science, may I have it?




posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by chickeneater
The most accepted, most irrefutable, most reliable and most widely accepted and most SCIENTIFIC theory of the origins of everything in the universe. Including the origin of TIME?

Is this the best we've got? Is it even proofable? Did TIME originated when Big Bang happened? Must be, because beyond Big Bang, scientists can't tell us what causes and what's before the big bang.


No. Time was started by the ancient civilizations on Earth. Humans made a minute 60 seconds long. not the universe, theres no actual scientific law that states a second ever has to be 60 seconds, humans created it as a means of measurment.


Originally posted by chickeneater
Is it topical now to also include "Chaos Theory"? Cause in chaos theory, you don't need to have a beginning nor an end, sort of a convinient way to explain away almost anything.


Do you have any proof of a chaos theory whatsoever? The Big Bang does have evidence supporting it, whether it be true or not.

[edit on 9/18/2007 by Schmidt1989]



posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   
From wiki:


In mathematics and physics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain nonlinear dynamical systems that under specific conditions exhibit dynamics that are sensitive to initial conditions (popularly referred to as the butterfly effect). As a result of this sensitivity, the behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random, because of an exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions. This happens even though these systems are deterministic in the sense that their future dynamics are well defined by their initial conditions, and with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 05:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by chickeneater
The most accepted, most irrefutable, most reliable and most widely accepted and most SCIENTIFIC theory of the origins of everything in the universe. Including the origin of TIME?

Is this the best we've got? Is it even proofable? Did TIME originated when Big Bang happened? Must be, because beyond Big Bang, scientists can't tell us what causes and what's before the big bang.

Is it topical now to also include "Chaos Theory"? Cause in chaos theory, you don't need to have a beginning nor an end, sort of a convinient way to explain away almost anything.

Consistency in science, may I have it?



Double post, how annoying. Quite a bit of evidence for the big bang at the moment- Cosmic Microwave Backround, Cosmological Expansion etc. Most cosmological theories come from general relativity in which time is just a dimension like width and depth.

According to M-theory, the Universe exists on a Brane. When Branes in the Multiverse collide they create a new Brane- i.e a new Universe.

Not sure why you would want to include Chaos? This comes about from unpredictatble behaviour in complex systems, usually modelled with Differential equations. The Einstein Field equations of General Relativity are Partial Differential Equations, solutions to these are much harder to find.



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Evidence for the Big Bang is flimsy at best, the big bang has it's roots in religious concepts of creation. It is completely at odds with the observations made since the beginning of the space age. We are constantly hearing how "surprised" the astronomers are, they then struggle with more adhoc explanations or invent new forces or matter in ridiculous attempts to fit it with standard theory.

The cosmic microwave background was predicted by many theorists outside of big bang theory all within a much closer range than those predicted by big bangers, in fact some big bangers predicted as much as 50 degrees before the true value was discovered. The powerful plasmoids at the heart of galaxies is enough to explain the CMB. Yes plasmoids not black holes, black holes are another theory that has evolved from many unfounded assumptions.

Red shift cannot be a factor of distance alone, Quasars have a very high redshift, originally because of this they were thought to be at the furthest reaches of the visible universe. Since, many have been discovered in the vicinity of galaxies of greatly differing redshifts, one famous one appearing in front of a galaxy with much lower red shift.
Many of the unfounded elements of mainstream cosmology have come about from a belief that gravity is the only force at work in the large scale, even in the face of overwhelming evidence for large scale electrical forces at work.

I'm sick to death of hearing about gases and winds being used to describe the effects of plasma in electrical and magnetic fields.

A few links to a new view of the universe.
www.plasma-universe.com...
plasmascience.net...
www.thunderbolts.info...
www.holoscience.com...


[edit on 19-9-2007 by squiz]



posted on Sep, 19 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 



Yeah, I read all about the recent discovery of residual cosmic rings that supposedly came from the initial blast.

What causes the BANG! in the 1st place is beyond current science.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 04:30 PM
link   
What causes the bang is something we might never know...

For that reason I think the chaos theory is something the future generations will have alot of time for...

No beginning no end,is hard to get your head around...But its no way near as hard as believing something came out of nothing....Its mathematically impossible for there to be nothing,no matter,no energy,no atoms nothing...

Its much easier to believe that the universe has always been here,but thats scary...



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 10:27 PM
link   
In billions of years, a certain life form on a planet evolves and survives long enough to produce a self aware species, which becomes intelligent enough to ask why it exists but not intelligent enough to find an answer to this self imposed question.

I would argue that the premise of this quest is fundamentally flawed and it really should not matter where and why and how we came to be.

Whether it is the religious and/or mystical fairy tales, or the most complex scientific theories modern science can offer, they seem to suffer from the ultimate wishful thought: That we are, in some shape or form, the result of a very very special chain of events, to give it at least an aura of "purpose", a raison d'etre...

Even calling it a grand name like BIG BANG... Something that might just as well be a simple POP! in a vast kettle of perpetual universal popcorn.

From our vantage point, yes, our current science supports the big bang theory to a certain extent... Fine... But this resembles a cell in our bodies tracing its origins all the way to the moment of conception and deducting that there was nothing before that.... Unable to observe, and totally ignorant of the sperm and the egg. Let alone any knowledge of the mama and the papa.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I think most people that disagree with BB don't really know the proof behind it. I found the show Universe to be pretty good.

Some who support M theory state the big bang began when membranes between dimensions colided.



posted on Sep, 20 2007 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Redge777
I think most people that disagree with BB don't really know the proof behind it. I found the show Universe to be pretty good.

Some who support M theory state the big bang began when membranes between dimensions colided.


Collision in scientific theory requires energy. Two colliding forces however random needs a "cause" or a reason if you will for lack of a better term, to collide.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:51 AM
link   
It's all we got. It's more than enough


Originally posted by chickeneater
Did TIME originated when Big Bang happened?

Yes. Stephen Hawking covers this in A Brief History of Time. It originated at the same time as space, and they are, of course, interrelated as spacetime.

And the evidence for the Big Bang, as somebody else pointed out, is pretty compelling.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by chickeneater

Collision in scientific theory requires energy. Two colliding forces however random needs a "cause" or a reason if you will for lack of a better term, to collide.


They ossolate at irregular intervals, the energy is potential energy released at point when seperate membranes contact each other. This completly fabricated unknown state of a thing called a membrane, contains the potential energy turned into energy mass and space time.

The initial energy that causes the ossolation is the soft whisper of a love struck girl singing out to a distant friend.



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 02:00 AM
link   
When there is no time ,there is no substance,and vice versa.

Before the Big Bang happened, the universe was in a state of chaos. There was even no molecules or atoms, and everything was in a state of unknown,even the modern scientists fails to offer a convincible explanation. The concept of "substance and time" was meaningless at that period. It was a world which would never be understood by human being, even Hades could not survived under such unfavorable conditions. ^_^

When the Bing Bang occured, time and substance were born simultaneously,like twins. Substance started to move/viberate/transform, and the phenomenon of time running was observed. With the lapse of time, the movment of substance was seen. The universe came to a new state which was familiar to us.

Time is used to describe the movement / transformation of substance,if substance vanishes, the time dies. Can you imagine a space that full of substance but without "time" to describe to movement of substance?Everything in this universe is in a state of non-stop running ,isn't it?

If our universe has bounds, we can holds the idea that the world out of our universe is nothing , we can't find anything there ,even time and space. We will never reach that world. Even if we have enough capability to reach there , how can we live in a world without time and space?

[edit on 21-9-2007 by nanoha]

[edit on 21-9-2007 by nanoha]

[edit on 21-9-2007 by nanoha]



posted on Sep, 21 2007 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Redge777
I think most people that disagree with BB don't really know the proof behind it.


I would say the opposite, most people who believe in the Big Bang are either not that interested in the universe and accept what they're told or are unaware of the history and theory leading up to the conclusion as well as the evidence against it. This includes the grad students.

Basically it's mainly based on what is called the "three pillars".

1. Red shift as a measure of distance. I've already explained why this is false, take a look at Halton Arp's research on this spanning over 30 years.

Exhibit A, NGC 7603.


Read this for details.

Also when redshift is plotted it reveals trajectories that all point back to the earth, so do Big Bangers claim the earth is the center of the universe?
Fingers of God

2. Cosmic Microwave Background. Once again this was predicted by many dissident's of the big bang far more accurately, radiation from galactic plasmoids and even stars can account for this.

3. Nucleosynthesis, the abundance of light elements. More cracks in the final pillar.
Problems with Big Bang Nucleosynthesis

So what's holding it up?


The big bang theory is based on three main pieces of observational evidence. Firstly, in the early decades of the century it was discovered that the light from distant galaxies is 'redshifted', i.e. the spectral lines are displaced towards the red or long-wavelength end of the spectrum as compared with similar spectra on earth. One possible explanation is that the galaxies are rushing apart at great speed and that the universe is expanding; from this it was inferred that the universe originated in a huge explosion. Secondly, the universe is filled with a uniform microwave radiation, which is claimed to be the faint echo of the big bang. Thirdly, the big bang theory is believed to explain the relative abundances of hydrogen, helium, and other light elements in the universe. Commenting on the evidence for the big bang, an editorial in the New Scientist stated: 'Never has such a mighty edifice been built on such insubstantial foundations'.

Source

It's more like religion than science.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:08 AM
link   
The Big Band vs. the Big Wind


Originally posted by squiz
Evidence for the Big Bang is flimsy at best, the big bang has it's roots in religious concepts of creation...

Greetings, Squiz. I've seen your avatar on the Science & Technology forum, and other science-related ATS forums, from time to time. Whenever I do, you're always plugging your pet theory, that of the wondrous

Plasma Universe!!!

and saying things like:


I'm sick to death of hearing about gases and winds being used to describe the effects of plasma in electrical and magnetic fields...

...which, I am sure you'll agree, is a pretty strong statement of confidence in your own theory. Wow, I thought (on reading that), this guy really must have something.

So I took the time to check out your links. And what did I find?

  1. Links to a handful of papers in plasma physics suggesting that there is probably more to the universe than current gravitation-led theories propose, and that plasma physics may be a fruitful field in which to find the supplementary answers; most of this kosher stuff is linked from
  2. a site by some guy at Los Alamos that carries a specific disclaimer dissociating himself from overenthusiastic pseudoscientific types;
  3. a heap of pseudoscientific wishful thinking from said types, namely people who want plasma to be the answer to everything, heaven only knows why; and
  4. Some guys trying to peddle a book that says the same as you (I thought that was against the ATS Terms & Conditions?)

That was your first post on this thread. The second, well... what can I say? Halton Arp is a reputable scientist and a famous contrarian, one of those people science needs to hone its edge against, but for the last thirty years he's just gone on singing the same old tune against increasing evidence to the contrary. There's still a chance he might be right and the rest of scientific orthodoxy is out catching fireflies, but it's a slim, slim chance. And the New Scientist statement you quote should not be taken to imply, as you make it do, that the editors of that magazine find it hard to believe in the Big Bang; I can't be bothered to look it up, but I'm willing to bet a modest sum that the statement occurred in an issue of the magazine in which unothordox cosmological theories were featured -- and doubtless, Halton Arp featured as well.

And so, in conclusion...
...I would say you've got a bit of a nerve going around making the kind of statements I've quoted you as making and in which your posts on ATS positively abound. Of course, if you were a plasma physicist (or any kind of physicist) such remarks might be forgiven. But are you a physicist? The 'evidence' you post for your theories leads me to doubt it.

In any event a little more modesty, and honesty, would become you a great deal better. And if your plasma theories really are true, you're certainly more likely to gain acceptance for them by arguing reasonably and truthfully.



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 05:28 AM
link   
My twist on the big bang... A sun so big and hot exsisted in another universe this exploded to create all the elements and rip a whole in the previous universe creating ours, just my thoughts!



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


My apologies Astyanax, I didn't mean to upset you. No I'm not a physicist, I'm an enthusiast, I've been fascinated with the universe since childhood, I'm also a bit of a obsessive compulsive type, so I've done a lot of personal study. For many years I believed in the Big Bang and gravitational models so I know the other side as well.

The reason why I post so much regarding plasma cosmology and electric universe theory is simply because it explains so much.
Everything is electricity, from the atom to the universe, light itself is an electric phenomena, our senses uses electricity to interpret reality, muscles wouldn't contract without it, your heart would not beat and guess what the visible universe is 99.999% plasma! Shouldn't common sense say that plasma physics has something to add to cosmology?

Plasma cosmology is based on verifiable science, plasma physics and electrical engineering. The thing is it can be verified in the lab, the same can't be said for the current paradigm. There is much work to be done, the field is relatively new.
Also Just to be clear plasma cosmology is verifiable science, EU theory is an expansion on the principles to other areas that are more theoretical.

You didn't look very far from what I can see, your comments don't have any substance, except ad hominen remarks. Plasma cosmology has its roots with researchers like Kristian Birkeland, he first proposed the aurora was an electrical effect, they laughed at him too, it took 70 years for the realization, after many, many confirmations it could no longer be denied. Haanes Alfven is another you may want to look into.
Also you don't have to be a physicist to have common sense, all you have to do is look at the images from hubble to see that the universe is electric.

Please elaborate on the evidence against Halton Arps theories, yes it's still in the realms of theory, but I have seen no evidence against it, I am interested. Wait, let me guess wiki right?



...I would say you've got a bit of a nerve going around making the kind of statements I've quoted you as making and in which your posts on ATS positively abound...


Ouch! now that's just nasty, isn't this the place for alternative ideas! I do take offense to that. I may come across as cocky from time to time but I do not insult people directly. My statements are not directed at anyone, just trying to deny ignorance. I've always been civil here and HONEST. Oh and I really am sick of hearing about gas and winds in space, isn't that honest?
Instead of getting angry about it, why not use your vast intellect to formulate a decent argument?

I did forget the Thunderbolts site had the book on the front page, Sheesh you're pulling out all the stops hey? Actually your post is in clear violation of the policies, discussing the poster and not the subject at hand.

If I were too post in every thread about mainstream cosmology on this board, I'd never get to work. For me EU theory has been a revelation, at last it makes sense, it's beautifully simple and offers a connections to the universe, atmospheric and planetary conditions, biology, quantum physics and even mythology. And to be honest I haven't accepted all the theories that are connected, I like to think I was applying scientific reasoning based on observable evidence and experiment (and still retaining an imagination) and applying Ockham's razor, to which the big bang fails miserably in comparison.

You've managed to redirect the argument, perhaps you can back up the big bang with some hard evidence? or tackle the evidence against it that I have presented, the image of NGC 7603 alone debunks the big bang. Or perhaps you can post some real evidence against plasma cosmology instead of attacking Anthony Peratt and avoiding the subject.

I'm willing to debate any subject you would care to discuss about the big bang or plasma cosmology, but stick to the subject instead of ad hominen attacks and poor argumentative tactics. If your nice, you may find me to be more receptive than you think I am.

Of course you can still believe that nothing went bang defying the laws of physics, that the universe is expanding, by all means believe in dark matter, dark energy, strange matter, snowballs in space, black holes, nuclear sun, impossible neutron stars and gravity only model and all the mathematical acrobatics to make it work, why should you care what I say? but it seems you do for some odd reason.


You don't have to take any notice of me, just look at some of my other crackpot theories regarding the universe.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Actually why don't you just put me on ignore, then I won't bother you at all.



[edit on 24-9-2007 by squiz]



posted on Sep, 24 2007 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Time can only exist if things change. If the universe at any time has no change every atom and electron was to not move time would stop. why? because no change could be measured, nor would it exist. Yesterday and today would be the same.

If today the state of everything exactly matched the state of all matter and energy of yesterday at the same time, time would loop for ever.

If before the big bang their was nothing then yes the BB created time because the lack of change made time stand still till some motion occurred. And if there was no motion before BB then time would have moved forward (measured change) for the first time. However many believe the BB was really dense particle that was in some flux. But who knows.

If you do not believe the big bang. Just read up on Hoyle's solid state theories and how they were crushed. People who spent far more time then us already figured this part out. IMHO

(By change I include any movement even vibration of strings if they exist)



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 02:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Ouch! now that's just nasty, isn't this the place for alternative ideas! I do take offense to that. I may come across as cocky from time to time but I do not insult people directly. My statements are not directed at anyone, just trying to deny ignorance.

I apologize.

I'm sure the electrical aspects of cosmology will be more closely studied when the technology becomes available. Gravity is easier to measure at a distance (perhaps because it 'acts at a distance', as Newton found it hard to accept), which may help explain why it features so heavily in physical cosmology.

I don't put people on Ignore. What would be the point?

Well, I did make one exception, but he was a postmodernist.



posted on Sep, 25 2007 @ 04:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Thank you for your reply, overall I admit to being arrogant at times, I will try to keep the tone more objective. My attitude stems from my frustration with cosmology that seems to abide by different rules of verification that other sciences adhere to.


Originally posted by Astyanax
I'm sure the electrical aspects of cosmology will be more closely studied when the technology becomes available. Gravity is easier to measure at a distance (perhaps because it 'acts at a distance', as Newton found it hard to accept), which may help explain why it features so heavily in physical cosmology.


I agree, I personally do suspect that gravity is action at a distance and gravity is actually a electrostatic effect. I base this on some experiments both controversial and accepted, as well as the fact that coulombs law is equally true if charge is replaced with gravity.

Unfortunately research into plasma cosmology is hindered by the high priests of standard cosmology.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

www.cosmologystatement.org...

Time will tell, I just hope it's not too long and that the quote in my signature is not really true in this day and age.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join