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.


Big Bang Theory confirmed.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:23 PM
Come cattle...herd into this thread.

Never mind the actual fact that our solar system is one of THE very unique ones in our universe, but it is all the same with you peeps. You only accept what you want to believe and that is the issue with science.

The Big Bang THEORY suggests something came from nothing. Which is no different from God creating the universe, but you not so smart people will argue that fact.

Good luck with not having a Ph.D and trying to convince anyone.

posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by johngrissom

Once again just because it is called the big bang theory doesn't mean it is not true.
Like cell theory
Like plate tectonic theory.

Our solar system is very much like others...they have planets around etc.

Now try again...who is the smart one here? I claim nothing but you are not smart.

Heck people like you...well all the evidence could slap you in the face but you are too ignorant to open your eyes to see it.
Go on threaten me with hell again. pfft.
edit on 2-4-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:30 PM
Even tho i'm all for science and its fact and theories but, it would take more than a single research team to convince me that it is a 100% fact.

A very good and logical idea in my book.

Now other scientist to prove them wrong, that is when we can be certain how good the first team was.

posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:32 PM
reply to post by johngrissom

Also John both can exist together God and the big bang theory, why are you so scared of it?

posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 12:42 PM
reply to post by boymonkey74

If you can explain exactly how the hot and cold areas of this radiation analysis work, and what it all means and how it all fits into the big bang theory, and why this finding eliminates all other possible answers to the origins of the universe, then please do so. Otherwise, you're blowing just as much smoke as everyone else.

posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:19 PM

Originally posted by Beavers
the question I'm always left with is how did the matter we're all made of come into existence in the first place, and what made it explode?the big bang isn't the beginning, it's just the earliest bit we're capable of understanding right now.
Agree completely. I questioned someone with a similar angle.

posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:21 PM
reply to post by Knives4eyes

I think the big bang is a little confusing for some.

Its wasn't that something came from nothing... its that something expanded into what now know as the universe.

We have no observations of something that didnt exist and then began to exist.

posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 01:33 PM
reply to post by Wertdagf

We have no observations of something that didnt exist and then began to exist.

It's not that something came from nothing, it's that a lot of something came from something very very small. As Hp1229 quoted from Beaver (post above yours) it could be that the Big Bang was the beginning of this universe...and the end of something else, some other stage.

posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 06:02 PM
reply to post by AfterInfinity

There's soooo much paperwork to filter through in terms of research done for the Pre Big Bang :O
Much of this is fascinating...coincidentally there is still absolutely no research done by world governments into Rhesus Negative blood.

I didn't even know we had a Fifth Dimensional model for testing gravity.

posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 06:08 PM
reply to post by Knives4eyes

Again I must question if the big bang created the universe, or just one region of the universe? I still don't think we can comprehend just how vast this space is. If we think the universe is big, think bigger by a trillion trillion trillion times to the trillion trillion trillionth power. Then, think BIGGER than that!

posted on Apr, 2 2013 @ 06:25 PM
reply to post by jiggerj

Every piece must fit together in a grand cosmic scheme there's nothing to make me doubt that claim at all.

If the universe can be similar to an orrery or clock, what's stopping us from being surrounded by other clocks.....

Okay, but what if we change your earlier statement about the source of the prebang to, " what's the probability of the beginning being the end, or the end being the beginning for our universe." This particular thought tickles my mental pickle fiercely.

Also to keep my head from getting overwhelmed I apply a micro concept and try to visualize tiny watch gears but this might just be me.

posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 02:04 AM
no it's not

I'm not trying to be ignorant, smart or combative here .. But.

I'm just going to say straight out here that Nowhere in your post do I hear or see any proof of conformation of the big bang theory. (??)

Again, I'm being honest here not degrading your post.... being smart.... being combative... argumentative blah blah

But literally all I read in your OP, to my perception of understanding as I read it, was that they used a machine to gauge radiation of sorts (in a nutshell)----

And that throughout your whole post all I heard over and over resonating in my head was that they based this all with a pre-conclusion in mind that the Big Bang is indeed the truth of how our universe was created.

Seems biased if that is the right word to use.

I did not see them go through many variables or contants during this experiment/research. They did not rule out anything or take anything else into consideration from what I seen based on JUST your post that I read.

Nowhere in your post of what you say NASA purportedly confirmed did I ever get the feeling that NASA, or yourself, were explaining this unbiasedly, as in, taking into consideration possible disapproval of the Big Bang Theory any "DOUBT" or explanation why there would perhaps be any other probable cause for the creation of our universe. Like all I read in your post was BIG BANG or NOTHING, PERIOD -----

Every good scientist (NASA or any other) knows that solid research, whether it be technology or otherwise, should always be done with the mindset to try to prove or DISPROVE a theory, rather than just doing everything they can to make sure what they want to be true will be true. Visit all possibilities and rule them out like a checklist method is a MUST. This is NOT what I See happening here - what I see is that they want the theory to be the absolute confirmed theory so they MADE it that way............

Using a machine, Really.. I mean technology is great but the use of ONE machine and a relatively small group of minds coming to this conclusion doesn't cut it for me and more than likely most other intelligent, questioning, inquisitive, rationally-minded individuals to be used as a legit, solid confirmation.

Also, I want to be clear that nowhere in what I just said am I implying that I am anti-big bang or don't believe in it, I also am not saying I do for sure either, I'm just making an honest observation of what you and your post said.

So yeah, This purported "confirmation" just isn't sitting right with me and doesn't cut it for me. There's too much missing; I see there's no elaboration on their findings or other variables or methods being used to support these findings. The universe is complex and one machine and a few people as a basis for claiming they KNOW how it was created to me does not qualify as confirmation. Claiming confirmation here based on what's been said here is outright inappropriate for such a complex topic as this.

We're finding new stuff out about ourselves, our life and everything around us every day. Claiming definitive conformation is premature "at best."

Excuse me if my reply is not un-flawed as I typed it all out as I was thinking it.


edit on 3-4-2013 by unb3k44n7 because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 02:27 AM
reply to post by unb3k44n7

Or you could use this search engine yourself....

There is a portal that leads to other countries resources.

Knock yourself out, champ. Let's you peek into the minds of researchers worldwide....but nothing about negative rhesus protein blood ....except increased rates of homosexuality....well I'll save that for a later thread.

Ps that clock was just to help one person with perspective.
edit on 3-4-2013 by Knives4eyes because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 03:08 AM
reply to post by Knives4eyes

Well aware there's tons more research about this topic.
As said previously, my reply was solely based on what was said in the original post. s.o.l.e.l.y.

The thread was misleading, period. Lacking elaboration. Lacking explanation. Lacking much. Misleading mostly (Title). Full of one-sided perspective rather than confirmatory proof,

In short (!) This thread was a short, mixed up unorganized sit com missing 3/4ths of the scripts and complete with a terrible cliff hanger that prematurely cut into commercial.

Thank you for replying to my reply in a humble and civilized manner at which would actually allow for the progression of conversation and ideas and opinions to develop.


posted on Apr, 3 2013 @ 05:35 AM
Great thread I just got through watching a debate vid and reading an article about an interesting theory by about the theory of everything hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson this is right on time.

Dr. Katherine Freese, professor of physics at the University of Michigan

Dr. Jim Gates, professor of physics at the University of Maryland-College Park

Dr. Janna Levin, professor of physics and astronomy at Barnard College

Dr. Marcello Gleiser, professor of physics and astronomy at Dartmouth College

Dr. Brian Greene, professor of physics and mathematics at Columbia University

Dr. Lee Smolin, theoretical physicist at Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in