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.

 

Is the Big Bang a hoax?

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
Reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Yet REPEATEDLY the BBT's predictions fail to line up with observational data.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


Yet REPEATEDLY the BBT's predictions fail to line up with observational data.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



That doesn't even make any sense. The BBT is based on observational data.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I don't think it is a hoax. But it does spacialize time, imbuing it with characteristics it does not seem to have like direction and persistence.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
Since the Supreme is always same space-time Universal,
and there was always similarities between all sizes of bodies from super-galactic to atomic,
is it possible that the Universe is just like a fractal? with no beginning or end?


I was wondering if anyone could give me some insights about this.
Peace.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]


Let me say i don't believe that the universe has a fractal nature because it is not needed to give rise to the complexity we see in the universe. I'm not saying its not fractal im saying i don't believe it is.

Then again from inside the boundries of the fractal it would be hard to figure out your coordinates and determine if you were in a fractal or not.

Heres an article about the possibility of the universe having an underlying fractal nature.


M theory just seems too weird to believe. Particles can be in more than one place at a time. They don't exist until you measure them. Spookier still, they can even stay in touch when they are separated by great distances.

Einstein thought this was all a bit much, believing it to be evidence of major problems with the theory, as many critics still suspect today. Quantum enthusiasts point to the theory's extraordinary success in explaining the behaviour of atoms, electrons and other quantum systems. They insist we have to accept the theory as it is, however strange it may seem.

But what if there were a way to reconcile these two opposing views, by showing how quantum theory might emerge from a deeper level of non-weird physics?

If you listen to physicist Tim Palmer, it begins to sound plausible. What has been missing, he argues, are some key ideas from an area of science that most quantum physicists have ignored: the science of fractals, those intricate patterns found in everything from fractured surfaces to oceanic flows.

Take the mathematics of fractals into account, says Palmer, and the long-standing puzzles of quantum theory may be much easier to understand. They might even dissolve away.


www.newscientist.com...

and just for fun the deepest mandlebrot dive rendered to date that I am aware of





posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 06:57 PM
link   
The "BIG BANG" is a hoax and a laughable joke if you believe in the bible.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:18 PM
link   
You can't really think of the big bang as an explosion of "stuff" getting trown out into the universe...Rather the big bang was a sudden expansion of the fabric of space-time itself. The "stuff" didn't get thrown into the universe. The universe and all of the stuff in it just grew. So it's nothing like an explosion.

Many quantum theorists think that perhaps there was NOT a singularity prior to the big bang. Some current versions of the big bang theory do not NEED this singularity to exist to still be a viable theory.

...and one more thing: The big bang is on ongoing process -- i.e., the fabric of space-time is still expanding.



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Aha I found a Roger Penrose lecture about the big bang and pre big bang theories its quite a lecture and Penrose is never dull



the rest are easily found on Ytube



posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:29 PM
link   
I've been going around this subject for quite some time now, and i've come to realize that perhaps the best way to find the answer is not trough your mind, but trough your heart.
Imagine a void, nothingness.
What you do if you were GOD?
You would put something here.
Creation was nothing more than a Love implosion, that we are all sons of the Uncreated Creator God, because of his Love for Creation.
That we are all a part of him,
And that we move at one Song,
One heart beat,
Trough all infinity.


[edit on 10-1-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Reply to post by pazcat
 


Proving a theory wrong doesn't prove science is invalid. It's a philosophy, an approach. It doesn't need the Big Bang Myth to exist.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



You took my comment out of context, but thats ok since the OP edited his post to remove any context my reply may of had anyway, it wasnt as much a broad statement as it appears. In fact it seems he has changed all of his posts and not just for spelling, because they have all changed completely all a lot less preachy.





I've been going around this subject for quite some time now, and i've come to realize that perhaps the best way to find the answer is not trough your mind, but trough your heart. Imagine a void, nothingness.
What you do if you were GOD?
You would put something here.
Creation was nothing more than a Love implosion, that we are all sons of the Uncreated Creator God, because of his Love for Creation.
That we are all a part of him,
And that we move at one Song,
One heart beat,
Trough all infinity.


[edit on 10-1-2010 by _SilentAssassin_]




keeping this one though.

[edit on 11-1-2010 by pazcat]



posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
well one theory is that the universe will one day begin to collapse upon itself as it is expanding faster and faster as far as we know today. also energy can neither be destroyed or created only changed the same applys to information soooooo maby the universe is technically the same always just expressed in a different manner with every expansion and decompression. and black holes are simply giant vaccum cleaners and will one day devour everything including other black holes and then boom big bang? ............yes i know very sloppy and scatter brained but my brain is tapioca at the moment.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by xalaran
 


Time does not move, only we do.
The only constant in the Universe is evolution.
I prefer to think this way.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


"Also, it isn't a case of "something" coming from "nothing"."

"If you want to go further back, to when the spec doesn't exist"

With all respect your quotes kind of contradict each other, if there was a point when the "spec" didn't exsist, then something did come from nothing ??

Satellite1



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Evidence refuting the big bang:
The Big Bang Never Happened

plenty more where that came from.

I'm with mnemeth1 on this one, the big bang never happened.
Before anyone claims that there is evidence in favor of the big bang, Universal expansion or the red shifting of light as a reliable constant I think they should take the time to read mnemeth1's thread. Several members have put a lot of time into that thread, including myself, and it goes into great detail of the many problems with the big bang theory.

In summary;
The big bang theory is more of a religion than science and evidence that is toted as being in favor of this hypothetical event is actually against. This is a complicated discussion and I believe many points are well presented in that thread.



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by _SilentAssassin_
Time does not move, only we do.

I agree with this statement of yours and would like to add to it.
Time is a measure of the motion of an object against that of an observer.
Time is not a force of its own but rather a measure of a force that is contained within a moving object from the perspective of an observer.

Apply a force to any object and it will take "time" (inertia) to begin to move (accelerate).

A constantly increasing force is needed to continue the acceleration of any object.

Remove this force and the object will cease to accelerate yet continue on at a constant velocity (momentum).

Our concept of "time" is the measure of the force that accelerates an object or that which is contained within (momentum).

[edit on 1/12/2010 by Devino]



posted on Jan, 12 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Hi, big bang fans.

If you want proof of the big bang, think about its "fossil radiation" !

__COPY PASTE the next URL in a new page.
ec.europa.eu/research/infocentre/article_en.cfm?item=Resultofsearch&id=/comm/research/rtdinfo/special_ms/01/article_2303_en.html&artid=1105

THIS one works.
www.bnsc.gov.uk...

Blue skies.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join