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 bang theory; Fact or falls ?

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
The debate about the 'start' of the universe, or let's say the start of everything... is alway's lively. Some people say the universe creates itself, well other people say that the power behind creation is God.

I saw this article on the web that could change our thoughts again :


Recently, cosmologists have estimated that some of these galactic walls may have taken from 80 billion to 100 billion, to 150 billion years to form in a direct challenge to current age estimates of the age of the Universe following the Big Bang.


For the full article see :

www.dailygalaxy.com...

For some interresting video's about the subject see :

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...




edit on 15/9/10 by css1981 because: typo mistake




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I think this paragraph of the article sums it up best:
"Current theories of "Dark energy" and "great attractors" have been developed to explain why a created universe did not spread out uniformly at the same speed and in the same spoke-like directions as predicted by theory. But as Sean Carroll of the Moore Center for Theoretical Cosmology and Physics at Cal Tech is fond of saying, "We don't have a clue."
Thanks for posting!



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
God created the big bang. And its history from there.

Thanks,

Camaro



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:40 AM
link   
I know it's bad form to pick up on typos, but this one made me giggle, cos i now have an amazing image of the universe being born out of a Tuba.



Sorry, as you were........



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Acidtastic
 


I actualy didn't spotted it untill you mentioned it.... well atleast I also had to laugh about my own mistake...



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:59 AM
link   
That's cool man, it's good to laugh.


As for the big bang thoery, it's only ever been a theory. We couldn't possibly know when, or how the universe was created (IMO) Based on our limited perception of it. It's nice to pontificate though, it does make me chuckle when I hear people quoting it as fact.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by css1981
The debate about the 'start' of the universe, or let's say the start of everything... is alway's lively. Some people say the universe creates itself, well other people say that the power behind creation is God.


Only religious people think God created the universe. Religion and science don't mix together well. AFAIK the big bang theory has many flaws but it will have to do for the time being until a more compelling theory comes along.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Acidtastic

As for the big bang thoery, it's only ever been a theory.

Please please PLEASE learn the difference between the layman definition of a theory and the scientific definition. Call me hypersensitive but the "It's only a theory" line applied to science really gets my goat



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by john_bmth
 


How much social inertia must we overcome to popularize the term "Big Bang Scenario"? Isn't that a more appropriate description of what it really is?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I have followed Sean Carroll's work along with a number of other theoretical physicists, keeping in mind that these are theories, many of them today talk about the Big Bang as fact, I don't personally buy it, if the Big Bang were the case what came before it, something had to have created the Big Bang itself. I tend to agree with Sean Carroll.

Good post OP, S&F



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Yes, ahh yes, this is definitely a subject that requires an open mind. Rational though process demands we give both sides equal opportunity. "I believe the holy scriptures contain everything necessary for salvation, but as to the workings of the universe, that is Gods challenge to man"
Galileo
from memory



 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Well i think before you can have a "Big Bang", You first need some matter ?

I have a theory,

If we look at a "Mirror" as nothingness, then from a spec on that "Mirror" a thread of matter starts to appear...The basic ingredient of our universe.

Only when you see the thread coming from the "Mirror" you also see its reflection, This would be Anti-Matter which would be the basic ingredient of a "Parallel Universe".

From there it could be friction, Heat and then the big bang.

Could that be plausible ?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
Well i think before you can have a "Big Bang", You first need some matter ?

I have a theory,

If we look at a "Mirror" as nothingness, then from a spec on that "Mirror" a thread of matter starts to appear...The basic ingredient of our universe.

Only when you see the thread coming from the "Mirror" you also see its reflection, This would be Anti-Matter which would be the basic ingredient of a "Parallel Universe".

From there it could be friction, Heat and then the big bang.

Could that be plausible ?



You have got a verry good point over here. I have also alway's thought the possibility of an existence of a parallel universe or multiple dimensions..



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by css1981
 

Hi there, css1981. The Daily Galaxy is a highly untrustworthy source.

The Journal of Cosmology is an 'alternative' journal set up by a bunch of guys whose ideas have been rejected by the scientific and academic establishments. They're all kosher scientists and were once big names in their fields but their big ideas didn't fly and they're still sore. I think they're basically talking to each other and no-one else.

The article you quote appears to be about some pseudoscienntific paper put together by an Indian government statistician.

More here. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Would the "Big Bang Hypothesis" be a more accurate term? Probably, as we can't exactly duplicate it.

Still, so far, it seems to be the best idea we have, collectively, at the moment. I think as the years go on, and as discoveries continually show we don't know half of what we think we know about the Universe, we'll eventually let go of our sacred cows...but so far, Big Bang seems to make sense.

As stated though, the real question is what existed before it (if anything), and what changed to cause it? Was it the wellspring of a God? The idea of consciousness? Part of a continual cycle of creation/destruction, but on a Universal scale? Who knows?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Thanks for the warning. Didn't knew it.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
As stated though, the real question is what existed before it (if anything), and what changed to cause it? Was it the wellspring of a God? The idea of consciousness? Part of a continual cycle of creation/destruction, but on a Universal scale? Who knows?


You got a verry good point here. Interresting to make a study out of this.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   
I wouldn't say it is a fact, I would say it is a good theory that explains things well.

However I personally do not think it was the beginning of everything, just the beginning of our sector of the Cosmos.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I did a few posts on my own hypothesis about this a while back. [Infinite Universe Model ; irrationaltheorist.blogspot.com...] and [Roger Penrose - Aeons Before the Big Bang ; irrationaltheorist.blogspot.com...] ... my hypothesis is that probability amplitudes are dependent on entropic values, kind of like the odds of entropy going in reverse increases when entropy increases. As gravitational entropy increases, the thermal entropy decreases, and vice versa, thus allowing for a model of a much much older universe thus making the Big Bang just another causal event in an eternal universe. As the universe cools down between the galaxies, for instance, boson and fermion wavetranes condense together due to quantum effects and as the universe heats up in black holes in the center of galaxies the particles wavetrains get so active that they start escaping due to the black hole radiation (wrongfully interpreted by Hawking and apparently Penrose as well). Anyhow, just a hypothesis, but I do see some evidence for my hypothesis in extreme cold and extreme heat physics however.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join