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.

 

A question or two that STILL need an answer...

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by sirnex
 


They can claim whatever they want about the big bang...the simple fact of the matter is that it is postulated from observances that we make AFTERWARDS...we have no way of knowing that what we THINK caused what we observe is really what happened....so technically, it can't be replicated or validated scientifically...it's just a well-thought out guess....unlike other theories...that can be validated scientifically....

A2D


There is about as much intelligence and critical thought put into that argument as there is reason for you to believe in God.


The point is...the theory of relativity...observed...through our observations it's deemed "correct"....atomic theory...observed...through our observations it's deemed "correct"....etc etc

big bang theory....not observed...cannot be deemed "correct" through our observations...because our observations aren't relevant to the timeframe....the big bang happened in an instant...relativity...atomic theory...they persist...there's no 'one' point in "time" when they happened......


The predictions of the model *are* observed, but the model is not verified through experimentation or reproduction yet. Inability to reproduce is no measure of validity outright by itself. Do we possess the ability to reproduce such an event at this time? Use your head on this one. Your arguing that BBT is invariably wrong because we don't possess the capability to reproduce the event, that's a ludicrous argument of futility and logical fallacy. I understand we can't reproduce the event, but the predictions are observed.

Again, to reiterate my belief before an erroneous assumption is made, I do *NOT* subscribe to the BBT. The predictions *ARE* observed, but that I do not agree with those predictions as they appear to require assumptions to be valid despite contrary evidences.

Your claiming disbelief upon unfounded principles and ill thought out logic, or rather lack of. I have to by nature argue with you because your points of argumentation are without reason.




posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Your basic line of argumentation sounds something like this:

Gravity does not exist because no force propagating gravity has ever been observed nor have we ever reproduced gravity.

The above statement is equatable to your argument, but inherently ill thought out as equally well. No, we haven't discovered a force of gravity nor created gravity in a lab, but the theory of gravity contains predictions on that possible force of propagation that certainly are observed to occur, such as the speed of gravity.

You really have to slow down and think before you type.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Are you seriously that blind?

Gravity...is OBSERVED...WE SEE IT WORKING EVERY DAY...WE CAN TEST IT...

The big bang...IT HAPPENED ONCE...we cannot observe it today...or tomorrow....ANY OBSERVATIONS WE MAKE...AREN'T FROM "the big bang"...they're from WHATEVER IT WAS...that made the universe.........SOOOO...in conclusion...the big bang is just a guess...not a theory...it cannot be OBSERVED....

I don't know how else to put it.

basically...we can see gravity do WORK...it's constantly doing it's job...the big bang only did WORK...ONCE...we can't see it...we can only see the results and come up with guesses as to what could have made those results...

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 



Gravity...is OBSERVED...WE SEE IT WORKING EVERY DAY...WE CAN TEST IT...


Really? Point to the force of gravity being observed, the actual particle that propagates this force, not the observed effects of propagation.

Do you understand how forces are propagated and by what? Gravity is the only force where no force carrier is observed. The graviton has never been observed nor created.

Correlation does not imply causation, do you understand that statement?

We see thing's fall.

Gravitons are the force carrier of Gravity.

Gravity makes things fall.

That correlation does not imply causation unless that connection can be observed and thus far this is not the case at all. Yet you have no problem believing the force carrier of gravity exists as the predicted effects of it's existence have been observed despite the graviton itself never being observed.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


You are clearly ignorant of the scientific method, and your arrogance is stopping you from learning, as you are perfectly and unerringly sure of your innate ability to be right about everything all the time.

Critical thought - you could do with some.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
God created the Big Bang, and God was always there.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


Condescending and arrogant....you're doing it right.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Or you can just say the Big Bang is an atheistic word for GOD.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenkelley
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Or you can just say the Big Bang is an atheistic word for GOD.


Considering the BBT was concocted by a religious man with a biased belief that the universe must have had a beginning as such is dictated by God, I'd say atheism has nothing to do with it there.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 


Theory doesnt need direct observation of the event for it to be scientific. If it needed, then it means all History is pseudoscience, because it cannot be directly observed. Theory needs only EVIDENCE, if direct observation cannot be done.

We have observations and evidence (all galaxies are moving away from each other, universe was different in the past..) that is explained by BBT.



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


That's explained by many other things besides BBT...so how exactly is the big bang theory MORE accurate than say...God stretching the heavens out?



posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Tobeornottobe
 


This is the reason we cant have nice things.








posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
big bang theory....not observed...

The cosmic microwave background was predicted by Big Bang theory, and later found to exist in near-exact agreement with theory.


The existence of the CMB radiation was first predicted by Ralph Alpher, Robert Herman, and George Gamow in 1948, as part of their work on Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. It was first observed inadvertently in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey.


This figure shows the prediction of the Big Bang theory for the energy spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation compared to the observed energy spectrum. The FIRAS experiment measured the spectrum at 34 equally spaced points along the blackbody curve. The error bars on the data points are so small that they can not be seen under the predicted curve in the figure! There is no alternative theory yet proposed that predicts this energy spectrum. The accurate measurement of its shape was another important test of the Big Bang theory.


(The Big Bang) cannot be deemed "correct" through our observations...


The concept of the Big Bang was not immediately obvious to astrophysicists, but rather grew out of a steady accumulation of evidence gathered from both theoretical and observational research throughout the course of the 20th century. A wide range of theories attempting to explain the origin of the Universe were eventually discredited and superseded by the Big Bang hypothesis based upon the following critical considerations:

  • the current expansion, or Hubble flow, of the Universe

  • the observed helium and deuterium abundances

  • the cosmic background radiation

  • the cosmological solutions of Einstein's equations

  • agreement between various independent estimates of the age of the Universe

    Source


[edit on 17/12/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



What is the evidence against the Big Bang?

Light Element Abundances predict contradictory densities
Large-scale Voids are too old
Surface brightness is constant
Too many Hypothetical Entities--Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
No room for dark matter
No Conservation of Energy
Alignment of CBR with the Local Supercluster

www.bigbangneverhappened.org...


The ambition to find the ultimate reason for the existence of everything may be acceptable as a (pseudo-) religious quest but hardly as an objective and rational scientific endeavour. It is obvious that the assumption of a 'creation' is logically inconsistent with the scientific principle of cause and effect. Any valid scientific approach is therefore necessarily tied to the infinite dimensions of space and time as the forms of existence (the argument of cosmologists that time and space came only into existence at the 'time' of the big bang is a logical contradiction in itself and therefore scientifically nonsense).

www.physicsmyths.org.uk...


The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

The expression “the temperature of space” is the title of chapter 13 of Sir Arthur Eddington’s famous 1926 work, [[4]] Eddington calculated the minimum temperature any body in space would cool to, given that it is immersed in the radiation of distant starlight. With no adjustable parameters, he obtained 3°K (later refined to 2.8°K [[5]]), essentially the same as the observed, so-called “background”, temperature. A similar calculation, although with less certain accuracy, applies to the limiting temperature of intergalactic space because of the radiation of galaxy light. [[6]] So the intergalactic matter is like a “fog”, and would therefore provide a simpler explanation for the microwave radiation, including its blackbody-shaped spectrum.

Such a fog also explains the otherwise troublesome ratio of infrared to radio intensities of radio galaxies. [[7]] The amount of radiation emitted by distant galaxies falls with increasing wavelengths, as expected if the longer wavelengths are scattered by the intergalactic medium. For example, the brightness ratio of radio galaxies at infrared and radio wavelengths changes with distance in a way which implies absorption. Basically, this means that the longer wavelengths are more easily absorbed by material between the galaxies. But then the microwave radiation (between the two wavelengths) should be absorbed by that medium too, and has no chance to reach us from such great distances, or to remain perfectly uniform while doing so. It must instead result from the radiation of microwaves from the intergalactic medium. This argument alone implies that the microwaves could not be coming directly to us from a distance beyond all the galaxies, and therefore that the Big Bang theory cannot be correct.

None of the predictions of the background temperature based on the Big Bang were close enough to qualify as successes, the worst being Gamow’s upward-revised estimate of 50°K made in 1961, just two years before the actual discovery. Clearly, without a realistic quantitative prediction, the Big Bang’s hypothetical “fireball” becomes indistinguishable from the natural minimum temperature of all cold matter in space. But none of the predictions, which ranged between 5°K and 50°K, matched observations. [[8]] And the Big Bang offers no explanation for the kind of intensity variations with wavelength seen in radio galaxies.

www.metaresearch.org...


The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

big-bang-theory.com...

Seriously...we just PRESUME..that the universe started as a singularity...For no reason whatsoever...can we explain why it was there...how it got there...why it started expanding...NOTHING points to the reasons why...I have no idea how 'scientific minds' can put so much faith into a "singularity" somehow "evolving" into what we know now as the Universe....REALLY...THATS A BIG LEAP OF FAITH...c'mon now...



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:44 AM
link   
Explain this(paraphrased):

Francis filament - supercluster that is 300 million light-years across and at the most distant edge of the universe, 10.8 billion light-years away. 37 MATURE, BRIGHT GALAXIES to be lined up in a string... It's the exact opposite of what would be expected from the big bang theory. The cluster lies in the direction of the southern hemisphere constellation Grus. At such a distance, evolutionary astronomers assume they are viewing galaxies as they were around 11 billion yeras ago. That is allegedly just TWO billion years after the big bang.

This discovery rocks the big bang predictions:

The galaxies appear to be fully formed, mature structures;
The galaxies are algined in a long string;
The string is more than 300 million light-years long.

Almost every evolutionary astronomer would concur that two billion years, according to the evolutionary timeline of cosmic formations, is not enough time for the formation of such a cluster.

www.answersingenesis.org...

Of course, you can go the Arp route and say that the galaxies in this structure are actually relatively nearby but have high intrinsic redshift. And of course, you'd have to support that claim, which Arp can't even do. Unless you want to come up with another "theory" to support your first "theory"...maybe call it "the theory of intrinsic faintness"...

Does the big bang theory "predict" these circumstances? Or are they simply anomalies and exceptions that we can slide under the rug until we come up with some other BS excuse?

Respectfully
A2D

edit to add: I presume you guys have read "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff...BBT is postulated from statistical observations...just because there are a PERCENTAGE of features of the cosmos that support the claim...doesn't make it a legitimate one....

[edit on 17-12-2009 by Agree2Disagree]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 

Quotes from three nut sites and one that seems okay.

The Big Bang Never Happened: That's not you in the picture, is it? Anyway, it's a plasma 'cosmologist'. Fail.

Physics Myths: a nut who thinks he can dismiss things like gravitational lensing and the expansion of the universe in a paragraph, or three at most. Fail.

Meta Research: Daunting-looking roundup of Big Bang inconsistencies. I don't know how many are for real and neither do you. But I do notice that another part of the site is pushing artificial structures on Mars and claiming to prove that the 'face on Mars' is artificial. Fail.

Big Bang Theory: Nothing wrong with that one. You're just reading it wrong. Fail again.

Edit to add: Answers in what? Oh my Gah--oops. You're not serious are you? You are? Answers in where? In there?

Oh, my sainted aunt. A Biblical creationist playing at astrophysics. What next.

[edit on 17/12/09 by Astyanax]



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


oh my...no answers? All you did was question the authors' credibility...that tends to happen I guess....



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   
I like this answer for the Big Bang

www.abovetopsecret.com... -The Big Bang Never Happened

I am Not gay. but if I were, I certainly would not want to live in Uganda.

www.abovetopsecret.com... - BBC slammed over gay execution debate



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Agree2Disagree
 

I generally don't bother debunking Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, either.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I'm sorry, I didn't know Santa Clause and the Easter bunny were observed....this CLUSTER OF GALAXIES...is in your sky...and you don't want to debunk it? I wonder why...



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join