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.

 

If a tree falls and the BIG LIE.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I suppose that if there were a lot of bangs, then the Big Bang is bullsh*t anyway.

Well, yah. But if infinite, the Universe is full of RBEs (really big explosions), don't you think?


If you're just going to make up stuff, then why bother with bangs?

Well we have to make stuff up because we can't see that far. Is the farther than visual range really full of BS? I did not know that.

I don't hold the one big bang theory either by the way.




posted on Aug, 10 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by Garkiniss
I would say, without a witness it, there is no tree.

Seems like a fair assessment


hmmm...I don't know just how valid that notion actually is. Maybe in a freshman philosophy classroom it can keep its head above water, but it's pretty much dismissed by serious thinkers.


Well I suppose it depends on whether or not the universe is observer based...

If there are no observers in the universe, does it exist? I think it's a fair question to pose
edit on 10-8-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by PhotonEffect

Originally posted by Garkiniss


I would say, without a witness it, there is no tree.



Seems like a fair assessment


hmmm...I don't know just how valid that notion actually is.

No - you don't. But it cannot be proved that it isn't - it is an unresolvable question.


The existence of an external world is regarded as an unresolvable question rather than actually false.

Extract taken from the link above.
edit on 11-8-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
"If a man posts on ATS, and no one bothers to read it, did he say anything?"

Sorry, my bad. I could not help myself.

Seriously, in the early phase of the Big Bang (if it happened that way), there would be continuous gas and plasma, so sound might well have propagated, right? If the expansion were supersonic, it might not...


Haha that's a good one, but it would really depend if anyone read it. Not if he got a reply.

On the serious note, yes, it's a unknown, left open to interpretation which is why I created this thread tittled the big LIE.

The words give the presumption to children in school that it was a "bang" and unless they become educated properly in space or sound they will go their whole lives thinking it was a bang.

Some would rather die with no idea than the wrong idea, and those that are trusting or simply believe anything are manipulated to think they know it was a bang from a young child. I just think its wrong. And I suspect it's done on purpose.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhotonEffect
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


I think you might be taking the word "Bang" a little to literally..

"Bang" is supposed to signify(albeit in a very simplified manner) the explosion that is theorized to have occurred and given rise to our universe.

Obviously it's much more complex than that...

But if a tree does fall and no one is there to hear it, then no it absolutely does not make a noise...


Someone else said this to me, that I was taking the word bang to literally, but it's not just that. Even movies show that explosions in space make noise, also science programms on tv do when describing the big bang.

If we were thuaght that it was a unknown and could have been silent and it was called something else, would those movies and programmes be different?



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
There was no bang. The proof of this is that no matter where you are in the universe, everything is moving away from you. This indicates that there is no specific point of movement initiation, and that means that there was no initiation of that movement in the manner that would suggest such a detonation or single-point expansion of any kind.

The guy who invented the Big Bang was a Catholic priest, and just because no one's imagined a better scenario doesn't mean that the priest figured it all out. The fact of how everything that exists as material within our universe is actually moving away from everything else in our universe should be enough evidence that the Big Bang never happened at all.


I agree with what you say. Matter is moving away, but in my mind it's all coming together.


Love your sig by the way.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
There was no bang. The proof of this is that no matter where you are in the universe, everything is moving away from you. This indicates that there is no specific point of movement initiation, and that means that there was no initiation of that movement in the manner that would suggest such a detonation or single-point expansion of any kind.

The guy who invented the Big Bang was a Catholic priest, and just because no one's imagined a better scenario doesn't mean that the priest figured it all out. The fact of how everything that exists as material within our universe is actually moving away from everything else in our universe should be enough evidence that the Big Bang never happened at all.


I agree with what you say. Matter is moving away, but in my mind it's all coming together.


Love your signature by the way.



posted on Aug, 11 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Wifibrains
 


Don't believe everything you see (hear) in movies...

It's only for dramatic effect.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join