The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: CrisMoser on February 19, 2009, 08:24:31 PM
-
Did you know the Big Bang theory was created by a Catholic priest?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_big_bang
For Wiki skeptics click the links at the bottom. (Duh)
-
Before, there was nothing...
...which exploded.
-
What's your point?
-
Just interesting.
Atheists tend to use it as a crutch to "disprove" God where in reality, it was intended to explain God's method. Most Atheists I don't think knew that and should.
-
How does it explain God's method?
-
Well I dont think it does, the idea is there singularity and then a massive first moving force. Coming from a Catholic preist, that first force was obviously God. Like, God started the Big Bang to create the universe. Athiests use it as a tool against God where in reality it was intended as a theory of how God created the universe.
But Again, I don't buy it personally.
-
It is a tool against God because we have observed instability in super dense materials before, and a singularity, being infinitely dense, is no exception to this instability. It's quite possible that it was even more unstable, being an exposed singularity, and not covered by material such as in the case of a black hole, and this instability is what was the initial catalyst for the big bang.
-
Well the Big Bang itself may be plausible but other connected ideas aren't
Like the assertion that the singularity was always there before the Big Bang. THat would imply time to be infinite.
Every division of infinity is infinity, so if time was infinite, every period of time would be infinite. The fact that we advanced from one moment to the next would mean we had passed an infinity which isn't possible. The only Logical conclusion? Time is finite. If it wasn't always here it was created and time has to be created by something living outside of time. (Eternal).
Likewise with matter and space because all 3 elements of the universe are relative to each other. If time hadn't always existed neither have matter/space. The creator of matter would have to be not consisted of matter (immaterial) and the creator of space must not occupy space (omnipotent). So whatever created the universe was omnipotent, eternal, and immaterial. What does that sound like?
-
It is a tool against God because we have observed instability in super dense materials before, and a singularity, being infinitely dense, is no exception to this instability. It's quite possible that it was even more unstable, being an exposed singularity, and not covered by material such as in the case of a black hole, and this instability is what was the initial catalyst for the big bang.
God = unstable catalysis
That explains Genesis perfectly.
-
Like the assertion that the singularity was always there before the Big Bang. THat would imply time to be infinite.
Where did you get that assertion? There is no "before the Big Bang". Time didn't exist.
If it wasn't always here it was created and time has to be created by something living outside of time.
Why need it have been created? Cause and effect are meaningless without a backdrop of space-time.
-
It is a tool against God because we have observed instability in super dense materials before, and a singularity, being infinitely dense, is no exception to this instability. It's quite possible that it was even more unstable, being an exposed singularity, and not covered by material such as in the case of a black hole, and this instability is what was the initial catalyst for the big bang.
God = unstable catalysis
That explains Genesis perfectly.
But it still doesn't completely deny the possibility of no God. To cover the point above and continue with this, the singularity may not have been there forever, it may have been cyclic. So for the post above Proleg's, the bible may possibly just the account of our cyclic period of God's creative existence, or its still a steaming pile of horse manure.
-
Like the assertion that the singularity was always there before the Big Bang. THat would imply time to be infinite.
Where did you get that assertion? Time did not exist before the Big Bang.
If it wasn't always here it was created and time has to be created by something living outside of time.
Why need it have been created? Cause and effect are meaningless without a backdrop of space-time.
This.
Also, time is something created by man based on the periodic rotation of the earth and to try and catalogue events in a sequence. It doesn't actually exist as you think it does.
-
Also, time is something created by man based on the periodic rotation of the earth and to try and catalogue events in a sequence. It doesn't actually exist as you think it does.
Wow I am SOOO freaking sick of that "point." Call it what you want. The word time was invented to describe progression through the universe chronologically. Refer to it as shsifhufgh if you want to, it makes no difference.
-
Also, time is something created by man based on the periodic rotation of the earth and to try and catalogue events in a sequence. It doesn't actually exist as you think it does.
Wow I am SOOO freaking sick of that "point." Call it what you want. The word time was invented to describe progression through the universe chronologically. Refer to it as shsifhufgh if you want to, it makes no difference.
Sick because it's true?
You're right though, that's its purpose, but it goes a lot deeper than you think and has nothing to do with the "always was" status of a possible exposed singularity and it's existence, afterall, had you read Euclid's explanation, when space-time doesn't exist, why should it be whim to the same rules? Even in the first <1 second of the universes' initial life, the laws of physics, relativity, and quantum physics/mechanics operated MUCH differently than we observe now.
-
Why did Hara throw his clock out of a window?
Because time does not exist.
-
Why did Hara throw his clock out of a window?
Because time does not exist.
Time is a word to describe progression through the universe. Progression exists.
-
Why did Hara throw his clock out of a window?
Because time does not exist.
Time is a word to describe progression through the universe. Progression exists.
Ok. You apparently aren't understanding what the real point is though.
Please familiarize yourself with the concept of spacetime and report back how it is then possible for a singularity to have "always been".
-
Before, there was nothing...
...which exploded.
Win
-
Before, there was nothing...
...which exploded.
Win
There was no before. Fail. :P
-
Before, there was nothing...
...which exploded.
Win
There was no before. Fail. :P
So time didn't exist? It's still WIN. 8)
-
Before, there was nothing...
...which exploded.
Win
There was no before. Fail. :P
So time didn't exist? It's still WIN. 8)
Nope, which renders your point meaningless. 8)
-
Before, there was nothing...
...which exploded.
Win
There was no before. Fail. :P
So time didn't exist? It's still WIN. 8)
Nope, which renders your point meaningless. 8)
Why didn't it exist? And more importantly, how do you know it didn't exist?
-
I don't know it didn't exist. I'm merely presenting the current interpretation of Big Bang theory.
-
I don't know it didn't exist.
So time didn't exist?
Nope
-
Before, there was nothing...
...which exploded.
Win
There was no before. Fail. :P
So time didn't exist? It's still WIN. 8)
Nope, which renders your point meaningless. 8)
Why didn't it exist? And more importantly, how do you know it didn't exist?
I could argue the same idea against your belief in god.
How do you know he exists?
This is a typical argument that results in nothing more than circle jerking.
Same with the whole "always was" argument. Typical theist argument against atheism is "Something had to be before this or that" when they don't know a thing about physics and other sciences related to cosmology. We can then turn the argument around and argue "Well, what created god?" and theists will say something on how he didn't need to be created, and he "always was". I'm sorry, but one way arguments hold no water at all, it's pure hypocrisy. The difference is that science can change and adapt and fix errors, religion never truly does.
-
Religions change and adapt, science advances.
-
Religions change and adapt, science advances.
Religion never fixes itself truly, though. Science advances and corrects itself.
-
I don't know it didn't exist.
So time didn't exist?
Nope
I don't know anything. I only have a best guess.
My best guess is that time didn't exist before the Big Bang, in line with the interpretation offered by General Relativity that time ceases to exist at a singularity.
-
Religions change and adapt, science advances.
Religion never fixes itself truly, though. Science advances and corrects itself.
Religions twist and reinterpret themselves to fit the progress science has wrought. However, the same fail "faith" element always remains.
-
I was wondering....
It is common knowledge that the Andromeda Galaxy is headed right at ours. But the Big Bang Theory states that everything is expanding outward, away from eachother. How is it possible then that it is moving towards us?
-
I don't know it didn't exist. I'm merely presenting the current interpretation of Big Bang theory.
So if it didn't exist, it was created.
-
Again, over your head.
-
Again, over your head.
Don't tell me your one of those "Spactime, layered Universe, 11th dimension" scifi guys
-
I'm saying your thinking is not on the level required to discuss the legitimacy of the big bang theory.
-
Ok. You apparently aren't understanding what the real point is though.
Please familiarize yourself with the concept of spacetime and report back how it is then possible for a singularity to have "always been".
Here's a hint (http://tinyurl.com/bqlwe4).
PROTIP: Just because you don't understand it (yet) doesn't make it "scifi".
-
I was wondering....
It is common knowledge that the Andromeda Galaxy is headed right at ours. But the Big Bang Theory states that everything is expanding outward, away from eachother. How is it possible then that it is moving towards us?
-
Ok. You apparently aren't understanding what the real point is though.
Please familiarize yourself with the concept of spacetime and report back how it is then possible for a singularity to have "always been".
Here's a hint (http://tinyurl.com/bqlwe4).
PROTIP: Just because you don't understand it (yet) doesn't make it "scifi".
Do you honestly think this is the first time Ive ever disputed the Big Bang? The first time I have heard all that nonsense? I understand it perfectly fine, just like you FE'rs understand RE and like wise, just like creationists understand evolution. The point is it is ridiculous. "time didn't exist in singularity"... then it would have stayed in singularity for ever; it cant progress "time was made by man" nooo.. the MEASUREMENT of time was but not progression itself, etc
Then they send videos explining the 11th dimention which is - of course - ridiculous. "The Xth dimention is where all time connects as one and each of the times are connected..." Ok thats great but it doesnt exist in reality, only theory. "The universe is actually 2D" .... no..... fail.... "The closer you get to an object the more dementions in gains" ... no.... you can SEE it better because your CLOSER to it.
-
(http://www.meikathon.net/roflmao/facepalm4.jpg)
-
Ok. You apparently aren't understanding what the real point is though.
Please familiarize yourself with the concept of spacetime and report back how it is then possible for a singularity to have "always been".
Here's a hint (http://tinyurl.com/bqlwe4).
PROTIP: Just because you don't understand it (yet) doesn't make it "scifi".
Do you honestly think this is the first time Ive ever disputed the Big Bang? The first time I have heard all that nonsense? I understand it perfectly fine, just like you FE'rs understand RE and like wise, just like creationists understand evolution. The point is it is ridiculous. "time didn't exist in singularity"... then it would have stayed in singularity for ever; it cant progress "time was made by man" nooo.. the MEASUREMENT of time was but not progression itself, etc
Then they send videos explining the 11th dimention which is - of course - ridiculous. "The Xth dimention is where all time connects as one and each of the times are connected..." Ok thats great but it doesnt exist in reality, only theory. "The universe is actually 2D" .... no..... fail.... "The closer you get to an object the more dementions in gains" ... no.... you can SEE it better because your CLOSER to it.
Creationists generally don't understand evolution. But that might be your point, considering how the rest of your post goes on to share with us the nuances of the theory itself which you don't get. :) I'm not going to try and explain them to you, since I'm no physicist, but when I got it explained to me, it seemed rather logical. Also, why would the creation of time at the beginning of the universe be so illogical to you?
-
Ok. You apparently aren't understanding what the real point is though.
Please familiarize yourself with the concept of spacetime and report back how it is then possible for a singularity to have "always been".
Here's a hint (http://tinyurl.com/bqlwe4).
PROTIP: Just because you don't understand it (yet) doesn't make it "scifi".
Do you honestly think this is the first time Ive ever disputed the Big Bang? The first time I have heard all that nonsense? I understand it perfectly fine, just like you FE'rs understand RE and like wise, just like creationists understand evolution. The point is it is ridiculous. "time didn't exist in singularity"... then it would have stayed in singularity for ever; it cant progress "time was made by man" nooo.. the MEASUREMENT of time was but not progression itself, etc
Then they send videos explining the 11th dimention which is - of course - ridiculous. "The Xth dimention is where all time connects as one and each of the times are connected..." Ok thats great but it doesnt exist in reality, only theory. "The universe is actually 2D" .... no..... fail.... "The closer you get to an object the more dementions in gains" ... no.... you can SEE it better because your CLOSER to it.
Creationists generally don't understand evolution. But that might be your point, considering how the rest of your post goes on to share with us the nuances of the theory itself which you don't get. :) I'm not going to try and explain them to you, since I'm no physicist, but when I got it explained to me, it seemed rather logical. Also, why would the creation of time at the beginning of the universe be so illogical to you?
The Big Bang makes no sense. What was before it? Why did time start to exist only after it? Why did it explode at all? Why is matter so evenly disperced over the Univers because every explosion we have seen has been very random?
-
I was wondering....
It is common knowledge that the Andromeda Galaxy is headed right at ours. But the Big Bang Theory states that everything is expanding outward, away from eachother. How is it possible then that it is moving towards us?
Learn2cosmology
Think of galaxies as molecules in a gas. They are going to have a component of random motion. Even though the gas is expanding, there are going to be a few molecules which approach each other, despite the net expansion of the gas. It's the same thing with galaxies, we observe a net expansion through redshift, but there are statistical variations.
-
The Big Bang makes no sense. What was before it? Why did time start to exist only after it?
There was no before. Time didn't exist. Nor space. Without time or space, there is no cause and effect. With no cause or effect, there is no reason to believe it must have been created.
Why did it explode at all?
Unknown, and I suspect science will never know.
Why is matter so evenly disperced over the Univers because every explosion we have seen has been very random?
This is not an explosion. It's not dynamite or a nuclear bomb. It's the expansion of space-time itself. It is uniform because there are no outside forces to disturb it. The uniformity of the expansion can be seen in the Cosmic Microwave Background. This light we are seeing is from the primordial plasma of the early Universe before structure formed. The light spectrum we see is the most perfect blackbody spectrum ever observed in nature, though it still has deviations. We have studied the deviations in the CMB so well, that we have correctly predicted the formation of galactic structures that would eventually form from these deviations.
-
Ok. You apparently aren't understanding what the real point is though.
Please familiarize yourself with the concept of spacetime and report back how it is then possible for a singularity to have "always been".
Here's a hint (http://tinyurl.com/bqlwe4).
PROTIP: Just because you don't understand it (yet) doesn't make it "scifi".
Do you honestly think this is the first time Ive ever disputed the Big Bang? The first time I have heard all that nonsense? I understand it perfectly fine, just like you FE'rs understand RE and like wise, just like creationists understand evolution. The point is it is ridiculous. "time didn't exist in singularity"... then it would have stayed in singularity for ever; it cant progress "time was made by man" nooo.. the MEASUREMENT of time was but not progression itself, etc
Then they send videos explining the 11th dimention which is - of course - ridiculous. "The Xth dimention is where all time connects as one and each of the times are connected..." Ok thats great but it doesnt exist in reality, only theory. "The universe is actually 2D" .... no..... fail.... "The closer you get to an object the more dementions in gains" ... no.... you can SEE it better because your CLOSER to it.
Creationists generally don't understand evolution. But that might be your point, considering how the rest of your post goes on to share with us the nuances of the theory itself which you don't get. :) I'm not going to try and explain them to you, since I'm no physicist, but when I got it explained to me, it seemed rather logical. Also, why would the creation of time at the beginning of the universe be so illogical to you?
The Big Bang makes no sense. What was before it? Why did time start to exist only after it? Why did it explode at all? Why is matter so evenly disperced over the Univers because every explosion we have seen has been very random?
Again, I'm not that good at the big bang, but you should just read the wiki article on it. Anyway, there was nothing before it. Or rather, there wasn't nothing before it, there was no before, since time did not exist. There was the big bang, and there is no before. This is often interpreted as nothing existing before the big bang, but that is actually an illogical statement, since there is no before. Time started to exist only after the big bang, because in the presence of strong enough gravitational fields, time dilates, and in a singularity, which, due to having 0 volume, has infinite mass and infinite energy(I know this sounds like bullshit, but that's only because of the ridiculous compression which matter had back then), the fundamental forces and time congregate into one "superforce". Therefore, when the singularity collapsed and matter was spread across the universe, time and the fundamental forces were formed from the superforce. The singularity did not explode, I can tell you that much, but I'm not sure why the singularity expanded into the universe as we know it. On to your last point, what do you mean when you say that matter is evenly dispersed through the universe? As far as I can tell, there are vast stretches of emptiness between the galaxies and nebulas. And either way, comparing the Big Bang to an explosion doesn't really make any sense. That's sort of like me comparing an erection to blowing up a balloon. Sure, it's a fitting parable, but it's an entirely different principle.
-
Here's a useful analogy for understanding how time ceased to exist at the singularity.
Suppose time is like the latitude of the Earth (FE or RE it doesn't matter). Let the north pole be the beginning of time. The further you head south represents progression in time. The increasing circumference of the latitude lines represents the expansion of space. Now one could ask, what is north of the north pole? Nothing. There is nothing north of the north pole. In fact that question doesn't even make sense. It's the same thing with the Big Bang. What was before the beginning of time? Nothing.
-
Here's a useful analogy for understanding how time ceased to exist at the singularity.
Suppose time is like the latitude of the Earth (FE or RE it doesn't matter). Let the north pole be the beginning of time. The further you head south represents progression in time. The increasing circumference of the latitude lines represents the expansion of space. Now one could ask, what is north of the north pole? Nothing. There is nothing north of the north pole. In fact that question doesn't even make sense. It's the same thing with the Big Bang. What was before the beginning of time? Nothing.
According to String Theory there was a before. String Theory says that the big bang was caused by a collapse of higher dimensions. That's about all it says about what came before, however.
-
Here's a useful analogy for understanding how time ceased to exist at the singularity.
Suppose time is like the latitude of the Earth (FE or RE it doesn't matter). Let the north pole be the beginning of time. The further you head south represents progression in time. The increasing circumference of the latitude lines represents the expansion of space. Now one could ask, what is north of the north pole? Nothing. There is nothing north of the north pole. In fact that question doesn't even make sense. It's the same thing with the Big Bang. What was before the beginning of time? Nothing.
According to String Theory there was a before. String Theory says that the big bang was caused by a collapse of higher dimensions. That's about all it says about what came before, however.
As long as String Theory is untestable, I call it bullshit.
-
I call it interesting, yet irrelevant.
-
I was wondering....
It is common knowledge that the Andromeda Galaxy is headed right at ours. But the Big Bang Theory states that everything is expanding outward, away from eachother. How is it possible then that it is moving towards us?
could it be because Andromeda is close enough that the acceleration do to gravity is greater the the acceleration of the universe.?
-
Just interesting.
Atheists tend to use it as a crutch to "disprove" God where in reality, it was intended to explain God's method. Most Atheists I don't think knew that and should.
Right and you assume that most atheists don't know this why?
Moreover what something was intended to do has no relevance at all to the statement's validity or its implications. If for example the germ theory of disease had been made to remove the need for a deity to make beings sick (something it was accused of when it first arose) it wouldn't do that anymore than if it were constructed by a religious individual trying to understand how God makes people sick.
-
The Big Bang God makes no sense. What was before it? Why did time start to exist only after it? Why did it explode at all?
See how easy that was?
Why is matter so evenly disperced over the Universe
It isnt.
-
The Big Bang God makes no sense. What was before it? Why did time start to exist only after it? Why did it explode at all?
See how easy that was?
Um, fail because god didn't explode.
-
The general argument still holds water.
You claim that the big bang according to science is impossible (the "always was" factor) without something else before it.
Using that same logic, what created God then?
-
God didn't need to be created, you guise. He always was. He's exempt from the rules of logic because otherwise how could He possibly make sense?
-
The general argument still holds water.
You claim that the big bang according to science is impossible (the "always was" factor) without something else before it.
Using that same logic, what created God then?
god has always been. What do you think was before the Big Bang? I'm just intersted, and not looking for anything scientific.
-
The general argument still holds water.
You claim that the big bang according to science is impossible (the "always was" factor) without something else before it.
Using that same logic, what created God then?
god has always been. What do you think was before the Big Bang? I'm just intersted, and not looking for anything scientific.
Sorry, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If God can always be, then so can the universe according to atheists. Your argument fails.
-
The general argument still holds water.
You claim that the big bang according to science is impossible (the "always was" factor) without something else before it.
Using that same logic, what created God then?
god has always been. What do you think was before the Big Bang? I'm just intersted, and not looking for anything scientific.
Sorry, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. If God can always be, then so can the universe according to atheists. Your argument fails.
You didn't answer my question. if the Universe has always been, what do you think was before the Big Bang?
-
If God has always been, what do you think was before the Big Bang?
-
If God has always been, what do you think was before the Big Bang?
I don't think the big Bang happened.
-
So what do you think happened before God said "Let there be light" then?
-
So what do you think happened before God said "Let there be light" then?
Time is not a factor for God, only for us.
-
So what do you think happened before God said "Let there be light" then?
Time is not a factor for God, only for us.
So time didn't exist before God created the universe? ???
-
So what do you think happened before God said "Let there be light" then?
Time is not a factor for God, only for us.
So time didn't exist before God created the universe? ???
I know this is a trap
-
So what do you think happened before God said "Let there be light" then?
Time is not a factor for God, only for us.
So time didn't exist before God created the universe? ???
I know this is a trap
How so?
-
Why is matter so evenly disperced over the Univers because every explosion we have seen has been very random?
Someone give a medal to Astrotard Jones over here. He has reached a whole new level of stupid.
-
Just because we don't know what happened "before" the big bang does not mean that it has to be god. It does not actually give evidence to god. i just means we don't know. People used to think lightning was caused by god. We know better now. But it demonstrates the point. Just because right now we don't know how does not mean we should give credit to god.
-
So what do you think happened before God said "Let there be light" then?
Time is not a factor for God, only for us.
So time didn't exist before God created the universe? ???
I know this is a trap
How so?
He could hear Ackbar in the background.
http://www.entertonement.com/clips/30308/Admiral-Ackbar/Return-of-the-Jedi/Admiral-Ackbar-It%27s-a-Trap (http://www.entertonement.com/clips/30308/Admiral-Ackbar/Return-of-the-Jedi/Admiral-Ackbar-It%27s-a-Trap)
Someone give a medal to Astrotard Jones over here. He has reached a whole new level of stupid.
http://images.craigslist.org/3nf3o93l2ZZZZZZZZZ922e5c8c24709d31ebc.jpg (http://images.craigslist.org/3nf3o93l2ZZZZZZZZZ922e5c8c24709d31ebc.jpg)
-
So what do you think happened before God said "Let there be light" then?
Time is not a factor for God, only for us.
So time didn't exist before God created the universe? ???
I know this is a trap
It's not a "trap", you fucking idiot, it's a logical argument showing that you are incorrect in believing that the big bang theory is incorrect without proof of its invalidity.
-
Why is matter so evenly disperced over the Univers because every explosion we have seen has been very random?
Someone give a medal to Astrotard Jones over here. He has reached a whole new level of stupid.
For that you deserve a dumbass medal. Matter is so evenly dispersed over the Universe that it baffles Scientists.
-
I do hope that you actually know how dumb you look saying that.
-
Matter in the Universe seems to be mainly clumped together in galaxies of various sizes, ranging from dwarf galaxies of about 1-3 kpc to giant galaxies of 30-50 kpc (in visual size). These galaxies are again clumped together in groups, which in turn gathers in clusters. There are also indications of clusters grouping in superclusters. Clustering of galaxies into groups is typical for the distribution of galaxies in the Universe. Studies show that less than 10-20 per cent of the galaxies do not belong to any group, often referred to as ``field'' galaxies.
http://trond.hjorteland.com/thesis/node6.html
-
Matter in the Universe seems to be mainly clumped together in galaxies of various sizes, ranging from dwarf galaxies of about 1-3 kpc to giant galaxies of 30-50 kpc (in visual size). These galaxies are again clumped together in groups, which in turn gathers in clusters. There are also indications of clusters grouping in superclusters. Clustering of galaxies into groups is typical for the distribution of galaxies in the Universe. Studies show that less than 10-20 per cent of the galaxies do not belong to any group, often referred to as ``field'' galaxies.
http://trond.hjorteland.com/thesis/node6.html
But there is matter in every single direction. In every single explosion we have seen, there is a very random displacement of matter. But if there was a big bang, it makes sense that there would be some places in the Sky where there is nothing but empty space. But there isn't, there is matter everywhere.
-
Matter in the Universe seems to be mainly clumped together in galaxies of various sizes, ranging from dwarf galaxies of about 1-3 kpc to giant galaxies of 30-50 kpc (in visual size). These galaxies are again clumped together in groups, which in turn gathers in clusters. There are also indications of clusters grouping in superclusters. Clustering of galaxies into groups is typical for the distribution of galaxies in the Universe. Studies show that less than 10-20 per cent of the galaxies do not belong to any group, often referred to as ``field'' galaxies.
http://trond.hjorteland.com/thesis/node6.html
But there is matter in every single direction. In every single explosion we have seen, there is a very random displacement of matter. But if there was a big bang, it makes sense that there would be some places in the Sky where there is nothing but empty space. But there isn't, there is matter everywhere.
The fail in this post... :-\
-
Matter in the Universe seems to be mainly clumped together in galaxies of various sizes, ranging from dwarf galaxies of about 1-3 kpc to giant galaxies of 30-50 kpc (in visual size). These galaxies are again clumped together in groups, which in turn gathers in clusters. There are also indications of clusters grouping in superclusters. Clustering of galaxies into groups is typical for the distribution of galaxies in the Universe. Studies show that less than 10-20 per cent of the galaxies do not belong to any group, often referred to as ``field'' galaxies.
http://trond.hjorteland.com/thesis/node6.html
But there is matter in every single direction. In every single explosion we have seen, there is a very random displacement of matter. But if there was a big bang, it makes sense that there would be some places in the Sky where there is nothing but empty space. But there isn't, there is matter everywhere.
The fail in this post... :-\
You suck at debating. Your just saying fail to something you don't understand. Are you trying to refute my claims? no. your just saying fail. Good job, faggot.
-
I think you've got something a little mixed up here. You are the one trying to refute something that you don't understand, and I am not trying to refute your claims because they are faulty. I'm not here to teach you about the Big Bang, but I suggest actually reading up on it from a non-biased source before you start failing at refuting it. Creationist propaganda isn't going to give you a good view of what the theory actually stipulates.
-
I think you've got something a little mixed up here. You are the one trying to refute something that you don't understand, and I am not trying to refute your claims because they are faulty. I'm not here to teach you about the Big Bang, but I suggest actually reading up on it from a non-biased source before you start failing at refuting it. Creationist propaganda isn't going to give you a good view of what the theory actually stipulates.
I got this information from the History chnnel, which was doing a special on the Big bang. so it's not propoganda, and your just uninformed on the subject.
-
You know, your previous posts tell another story.
-
The history channel also did show on how the moon landings are faked. Just because s few scientist go on a show and say something does not make it true.
and before you mention the moon landing myth busters proved all the evidence they had does not actually prove anything.
-
You know, your previous posts tell another story.
You don't understand it. thats why you are confused.Let another smarter Atheist take this up.
Same with Optimisticcynic
-
You know, your previous posts tell another story.
You don't understand it. thats why you are confused.Let another smarter Atheist take this up.
Same with Optimisticcynic
Have you had any physics education past high school level? Has a physicist ever explained the big bang to you?
The history channel also did show on how the moon landings are faked. Just because s few scientist go on a show and say something does not make it true.
and before you mention the moon landing myth busters proved all the evidence they had does not actually prove anything.
Actually, mythbusters aren't scientifically rigorous. I still don't believe the conspiracy theorists, but they only poured gasoline on the proverbial fire, imo. Although, they did it per popular demand, so I exempt them from blame.
-
But there is matter in every single direction. In every single explosion we have seen, there is a very random displacement of matter. But if there was a big bang, it makes sense that there would be some places in the Sky where there is nothing but empty space. But there isn't, there is matter everywhere.
Are you aware of the difference between a chemical explosion and the expansion of space?
I got this information from the History chnnel, which was doing a special on the Big bang. so it's not propoganda, and your just uninformed on the subject.
The Big Bang is not history. Please get better sources. Even reading Wikipedia would do you some good, it seems.
You don't understand it. thats why you are confused.Let another smarter Atheist take this up.
Same with Optimisticcynic
Quit stereotyping atheists as believers in the Big Bang theory.
-
I still want my question answered. If the universe in the sense that before the big bang existed in the form of a singularity or other mass could not have always been, then what created God? You cannot argue that the universe couldn't have always been without accepting that, by proxy, your god must have been created by something as well, or secede that both could have always been.
-
I still want my question answered. If the universe in the sense that before the big bang existed in the form of a singularity or other mass could not have always been, then what created God? You cannot argue that the universe couldn't have always been without accepting that, by proxy, your god must have been created by something as well, or secede that both could have always been.
Yes he can. He's a Christian, his arguments don't need to be logical.
-
I still want my question answered. If the universe in the sense that before the big bang existed in the form of a singularity or other mass could not have always been, then what created God? You cannot argue that the universe couldn't have always been without accepting that, by proxy, your god must have been created by something as well, or secede that both could have always been.
Yes he can. He's a Christian, his arguments don't need to be logical.
That would work if he were arguing against someone who was also illogical, however, he's not and must conform else be branded an idiot. Oh wait...
-
Matter in the Universe seems to be mainly clumped together in galaxies of various sizes, ranging from dwarf galaxies of about 1-3 kpc to giant galaxies of 30-50 kpc (in visual size). These galaxies are again clumped together in groups, which in turn gathers in clusters. There are also indications of clusters grouping in superclusters. Clustering of galaxies into groups is typical for the distribution of galaxies in the Universe. Studies show that less than 10-20 per cent of the galaxies do not belong to any group, often referred to as ``field'' galaxies.
http://trond.hjorteland.com/thesis/node6.html
But there is matter in every single direction. In every single explosion we have seen, there is a very random displacement of matter. But if there was a big bang, it makes sense that there would be some places in the Sky where there is nothing but empty space. But there isn't, there is matter everywhere.
We are in a galaxy which is a irregular in the universe. it is a group of stars in a sea of nothing. I consider that a irregularity. The reason however that there aren't blank spaces in the sky is we are in this irregularity with a high concentration of stars. why would there be a dark point in the sky if the only place were life is likely to evolve is in a large group of stars. So of course the sky would not have empty spots even if there was empty spots in the universe.
-
We are in a galaxy which is a irregular in the universe. it is a group of stars in a sea of nothing. I consider that a irregularity. The reason however that there aren't blank spaces in the sky is we are in this irregularity with a high concentration of stars. why would there be a dark point in the sky if the only place were life is likely to evolve is in a large group of stars. So of course the sky would not have empty spots even if there was empty spots in the universe.
This is irrelevant anyway, as the Big Bang theory makes the opposite prediction to the one KingMan is saying it does.
-
I still want my question answered. If the universe in the sense that before the big bang existed in the form of a singularity or other mass could not have always been, then what created God? You cannot argue that the universe couldn't have always been without accepting that, by proxy, your god must have been created by something as well, or secede that both could have always been.
Yes he can. He's a Christian, his arguments don't need to be logical.
You're an Atheist. None of your Arguments are logical.
-
You're an Atheist. None of your Arguments are logical.
Wow. Just wow.
And stay away from World of warcraft. you loser.
-
You're an Atheist. None of your Arguments are logical.
I'd be glad to walk you through the logic in one of my posts, if you can find one that you don't understand.
-
The funny thing is that even here, the "matter everywhere" argument looks completely retarded. Look up in the sky for a bit at night, and it becomes apparent that there is matter, but there are vast stretches of nothingness in between those massive specks.
I still want my question answered. If the universe in the sense that before the big bang existed in the form of a singularity or other mass could not have always been, then what created God? You cannot argue that the universe couldn't have always been without accepting that, by proxy, your god must have been created by something as well, or secede that both could have always been.
Yes he can. He's a Christian, his arguments don't need to be logical.
You're an Atheist. None of your Arguments are logical.
Come on, stop being retarded.
"Invisible man in the sky did it. Also, there's a part of your body that's not really there, but it's eternal and very real etc." < "Physics and chemistry did it"
on a scale of lack of logic? lol
-
The funny thing is that even here, the "matter everywhere" argument looks completely retarded. Look up in the sky for a bit at night, and it becomes apparent that there is matter, but there are vast stretches of nothingness in between those massive specks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium
-
The funny thing is that even here, the "matter everywhere" argument looks completely retarded. Look up in the sky for a bit at night, and it becomes apparent that there is matter, but there are vast stretches of nothingness in between those massive specks.
I still want my question answered. If the universe in the sense that before the big bang existed in the form of a singularity or other mass could not have always been, then what created God? You cannot argue that the universe couldn't have always been without accepting that, by proxy, your god must have been created by something as well, or secede that both could have always been.
Yes he can. He's a Christian, his arguments don't need to be logical.
You're an Atheist. None of your Arguments are logical.
Come on, stop being retarded.
"Invisible man in the sky did it. Also, there's a part of your body that's not really there, but it's eternal and very real etc." < "Physics and chemistry did it"
on a scale of lack of logic.
Your trying to tell me to stop being retarded is quite funny, when in the next sentence you say something retarded. And we can see very few of the stars with the naked eye. Use Google sky and let me know if you can find a stretch that has no stars in it.
-
Use Google sky and let me know if you can find a stretch that has no stars in it.
Does Google Sky show up as plain white for you?
-
Your trying to tell me to stop being retarded is quite funny, when in the next sentence you say something retarded.
I bet a considerable amount of money and one spare of every organ which I have two of that you are the only one on here who sees it that way.
-
Your trying to tell me to stop being retarded is quite funny, when in the next sentence you say something retarded.
I bet a considerable amount of money and one spare of every organ which I have two of that you are the only one on here who sees it that way.
Only because you know nothing about my religion.
-
KingMan, will you please stop ignoring the posts you know you have no answer to? It just makes you look like that much more of an idiot.
-
KingMan, will you please stop ignoring the posts you know you have no answer to? It just makes you look like that much more of an idiot.
You look like an idiot yourself.
-
Your trying to tell me to stop being retarded is quite funny, when in the next sentence you say something retarded.
I bet a considerable amount of money and one spare of every organ which I have two of that you are the only one on here who sees it that way.
Only because you know nothing about my religion.
Actually not, I know a lot about christianity since I technically am a christian myself.
-
You look like an idiot yourself.
Then how about pointing out what about my responses to your points is so idiotic, instead of just skipping over the posts that make an attempt at reasoned debate and flaming people instead?
-
You look like an idiot yourself.
Then how about pointing out what about my responses to your points is so idiotic, instead of just skipping over the posts that make an attempt at reasoned debate and flaming people instead?
If it continues, there will be consequences (for KingMan).
-
Kingman, could you just write down a quick list of your objections to the big bang? It would be much easier to debate with you if you were a little more comprehensive. And didn't assume we are all ignorant.
-
Kingman, could you just write down a quick list of your objections to the big bang? It would be much easier to debate with you if you were a little more comprehensive. And didn't assume we are all ignorant.
This stems from his own ignorance, it's to be expected.
-
Kingman, could you just write down a quick list of your objections to the big bang? It would be much easier to debate with you if you were a little more comprehensive. And didn't assume we are all ignorant.
This.
Well, this thread has certainly descended into faggotry and idiocy. Kingman, I'm more than happy to answer your doubts about the Big Bang theory in a civil way if you will treat me the same.
-
Much like its subject, this thread was over before it began.
-
For that you deserve a dumbass medal. Matter is so evenly dispersed over the Universe that it baffles Scientists.
Not true. In fact, if anything the exact opposite is true. Scientists have had trouble explaining why there would be large-scale structures rather than a more even distribution. One reason the inflationary hypothesis was created was to try to explain this.
-
Your trying to tell me to stop being retarded is quite funny, when in the next sentence you say something retarded.
I bet a considerable amount of money and one spare of every organ which I have two of that you are the only one on here who sees it that way.
Only because you know nothing about my religion.
Actually not, I know a lot about christianity since I technically am a christian myself.
No you're not.
-
So, what do I have to do to be a christian?
-
So, what do I have to do to be a christian?
Believe the Bible is Gods word, Jesus was his son, he died on a cross, rose 3 days later, ascended to heaven, and you must accept Christ as your savior. So ae you still Christian?
-
Well, I guess. Although, I also believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
-
Well, I guess. Although, I also believe in the flying spaghetti monster.
I ate him.
-
I doubt it. Anyway:
Kingman, could you just write down a quick list of your objections to the big bang? It would be much easier to debate with you if you were a little more comprehensive. And didn't assume we are all ignorant.
-
I doubt it. Anyway:Kingman, could you just write down a quick list of your objections to the big bang? It would be much easier to debate with you if you were a little more comprehensive. And didn't assume we are all ignorant.
I don't get why it expanded. What was the force behind it? If gravity did not exist before it, why was all the matter collecting together? I will come up with some more later, but my class is done so I might not be back on till tomorrow.
-
I doubt it. Anyway:Kingman, could you just write down a quick list of your objections to the big bang? It would be much easier to debate with you if you were a little more comprehensive. And didn't assume we are all ignorant.
I don't get why it expanded. What was the force behind it? If gravity did not exist before it, why was all the matter collecting together? I will come up with some more later, but my class is done so I might not be back on till tomorrow.
Matter has an effect on space-time, even on the smallest of scales. But you might just as well think of it as an act of God in an utter bout of creative boredom.
-
I doubt it. Anyway:Kingman, could you just write down a quick list of your objections to the big bang? It would be much easier to debate with you if you were a little more comprehensive. And didn't assume we are all ignorant.
I don't get why it expanded. What was the force behind it? If gravity did not exist before it, why was all the matter collecting together? I will come up with some more later, but my class is done so I might not be back on till tomorrow.
Because there was no space for the matter to spread out to. Space was a singularity so all the matter also had to be a singularity.
-
So, what do I have to do to be a christian?
Believe the Bible is Gods word, Jesus was his son, he died on a cross, rose 3 days later, ascended to heaven, and you must accept Christ as your savior. So ae you still Christian?
To be a Christian, do you have to believe the Bible in a literal sense?
-
So, what do I have to do to be a christian?
Believe the Bible is Gods word, Jesus was his son, he died on a cross, rose 3 days later, ascended to heaven, and you must accept Christ as your savior. So ae you still Christian?
To be a Christian, do you have to believe the Bible in a literal sense?
In order to be a Christin you need to agree with the Christin you are talking with at the time. If you disagree apparently you are not a true Christin.
-
I don't get why it expanded. What was the force behind it?
There are various theories on this. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the Big Bang theory has only one possible answer to every question, nor that every non-religious person believes it to have happened.
Personally, my favourite theory is that the concepts of space, time and matter as we know them ceased to have any meaning before a certain point - when the Universe was small enough that quantum uncertainties meant everything. In such a state, it would be in turmoil; and in order to leave such a state, it would need to expand past a certain point. Once it was liberated from quantum effects, it just kept expanding because it was then subject to the physics with which we are familiar.
Also, don't use the word "force" to describe the expansion of space. Forces act on mass-energy, not space.
If gravity did not exist before it, why was all the matter collecting together?
When was all the matter was collecting together? Where the hell did you get that idea from? You just admitted in your previous question that it was expanding.
-
So, what do I have to do to be a christian?
Believe the Bible is Gods word, Jesus was his son, he died on a cross, rose 3 days later, ascended to heaven, and you must accept Christ as your savior. So ae you still Christian?
To be a Christian, do you have to believe the Bible in a literal sense?
one word answer: NO
-
I don't get why it expanded. What was the force behind it?
There are various theories on this. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the Big Bang theory has only one possible answer to every question, nor that every non-religious person believes it to have happened.
Personally, my favourite theory is that the concepts of space, time and matter as we know them ceased to have any meaning before a certain point - when the Universe was small enough that quantum uncertainties meant everything. In such a state, it would be in turmoil; and in order to leave such a state, it would need to expand past a certain point. Once it was liberated from quantum effects, it just kept expanding because it was then subject to the physics with which we are familiar.
Also, don't use the word "force" to describe the expansion of space. Forces act on mass-energy, not space.
If gravity did not exist before it, why was all the matter collecting together?
When was all the matter was collecting together? Where the hell did you get that idea from? You just admitted in your previous question that it was expanding.
Also there is the fact the matter was super compressed and without gravity to hold it together why would it not "explode"
-
Oh... Oh... I missed this thread...
Please someone tell me why they feel the background temperature of space is proof of a big bang. To my knowledge Georgy Porgie made several attempts to guess the temperature radiation of the event.
He was never looking for evidence but rather proof. ( as you science types like to put it ). I believe this idea alone is a perversion in the search for the truth.
Never mind the fact that Arthur Eddington made a much more accurate calculation many years before him when simply trying to understand how much heat should be radiated from the stars.
Here's a good paper on it.
"In a region of space not in the neighbourhood of any
star this constitutes the whole field of radiation, and a
black body, e. g. a black bulb thermometer, will there
take up a temperature of 3 18o. so that its emission
may balance the radiation falling on it and absorbed
by it. This is sometimes called the ?temperature of in-
terstellar space."
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF
-
There are various theories on this. Do not make the mistake of thinking that the Big Bang theory has only one possible answer to every question, nor that every non-religious person believes it to have happened.
Also do not make the mistake of thinking the lack of a solid explanation for first cause means the Big Bang didn't happen at all. There is strong evidence suggesting the Universe expanded from a highly dense state in the past. You are completely ignoring this evidence in your arguments.
And I'm also unsure why you find the Big Bang so repulsive anyway. I don't see how it contradicts any Christian dogma. Rather I find the idea of the Universe being created in a primordial singularity very appealing.
If gravity did not exist before it, why was all the matter collecting together?
You are thinking of the Big Bang entirely wrong. Don't think of it as watching a giant explosion from a single point in space where all matter is collected together. It's not like that at all.
-
So, what do I have to do to be a christian?
Believe the Bible is Gods word, Jesus was his son, he died on a cross, rose 3 days later, ascended to heaven, and you must accept Christ as your savior. So ae you still Christian?
To be a Christian, do you have to believe the Bible in a literal sense?
No, you just have to be retarded.
-
So, what do I have to do to be a christian?
Believe the Bible is Gods word, Jesus was his son, he died on a cross, rose 3 days later, ascended to heaven, and you must accept Christ as your savior. So ae you still Christian?
To be a Christian, do you have to believe the Bible in a literal sense?
No, you just have to be retarded.
Win.
-
Believe the Bible is Gods word, Jesus was his son, he died on a cross, rose 3 days later, ascended to heaven, and you must accept Christ as your savior.
I'm confused by that list. Does that mean that someone cannot for example get salvation if they haven't heard of the Bible but someone told them the rest of the theology? Also what does it mean by believing that the Bible is the word of God? There are so many disagreements on which books are in the Bible (most Protestants don't agree with most Catholics, and then there are others like the Mormons who have their own books they add). Also, why does Jesus's manner of death matter? How does the fact that it was on a cross and not by any other method modify the salvational power of that action? Similarly, why is the number of days between his death and ascenion relevant?
Finally, last question: Suppose I took a copy of the Bible (one you consider the Bible) and I replaced every time it said "Jesus" with some other name (say Gollum). If someone read that text and then decided to accept Gollum as their personal lord and savior would they be a Christian who would get to go to heaven?
-
Also there is the fact the matter was super compressed and without gravity to hold it together why would it not "explode"
Apparently you don't understand the Big Bang theory any better than KingMan does.
-
Also there is the fact the matter was super compressed and without gravity to hold it together why would it not "explode"
Apparently you don't understand the Big Bang theory any better than KingMan does.
What is wrong with that question?
-
Also there is the fact the matter was super compressed and without gravity to hold it together why would it not "explode"
Apparently you don't understand the Big Bang theory any better than KingMan does.
What is wrong with that question?
when something explodes it takes a bigger volume. that requires some empty space. there wasn't a lot of empty space "before" big bang so an explosion wasn't possible
-
Also there is the fact the matter was super compressed and without gravity to hold it together why would it not "explode"
Apparently you don't understand the Big Bang theory any better than KingMan does.
What is wrong with that question?
when something explodes it takes a bigger volume. that requires some empty space. there wasn't a lot of empty space "before" big bang so an explosion wasn't possible
I know that I was wondering if the pressure from the singularity could expand space-time I know that doesn't happen now but I thought with that extreme amount of pressure And no gravity to stop it form happening if that could expand space-time. I don't know what it takes to make space expand so forgive this stupid question
-
I know that I was wondering if the pressure from the singularity could expand space-time I know that doesn't happen now but I thought with that extreme amount of pressure And no gravity to stop it form happening if that could expand space-time. I don't know what it takes to make space expand so forgive this stupid question
Pressure is defined as force per unit area. Forces act on mass-energy, not space.
-
I know that I was wondering if the pressure from the singularity could expand space-time I know that doesn't happen now but I thought with that extreme amount of pressure And no gravity to stop it form happening if that could expand space-time. I don't know what it takes to make space expand so forgive this stupid question
Pressure is defined as force per unit area. Forces act on mass-energy, not space.
But if space was curved that much at that point then the particle force on each other a portion of that force would be 90 degrees from reality so if a particle is pushed 90 degrees from reality it could stretch space right?
-
Well the Big Bang itself may be plausible but other connected ideas aren't
Like the assertion that the singularity was always there before the Big Bang. THat would imply time to be infinite.
Every division of infinity is infinity, so if time was infinite, every period of time would be infinite. [..] What does that sound like?
Sorry to say that, but it sounds like your grasp on the concept of infinity is lacking a bit. Let's take the set of all numbers. According to your logic, any subset of numbers would have to contain an infinite amount of numbers. So all I will say is: {1}
-
I would just like to say this, because the first time I thought of it, I thought it was funny, and true.
The Big Bang - Moar Liek The Big Suck, Amirite?
-
So, what do I have to do to be a christian?
Believe the Bible is Gods word, Jesus was his son, he died on a cross, rose 3 days later, ascended to heaven, and you must accept Christ as your savior. So ae you still Christian?
To be a Christian, do you have to believe the Bible in a literal sense?
Of course not. The entire book of Revelation is a prophecy and it would be stupid to take that literally. I actually stopped reading The Left Behind series because of how literally they took the prophecies, and it became dumb. As to what you do interpret or take literally in the Bible is up to the reader i suppose.
-
So then you admit that the bible is not the word of God? Because if it was, he wouldn't throw in a load of bullshit just for kicks.
-
So then you admit that the bible is not the word of God? Because if it was, he wouldn't throw in a load of bullshit just for kicks.
It is the word of God, but that doesn't mean it is always very clear in it's meaning.
-
So you're basically going with the "God works in mysterious ways" approach. In that case, riddle me this: What is the point? God is mysterious, which means you'll never find the answers in him. Why not just search for them yourself?
-
So you're basically going with the "God works in mysterious ways" approach. In that case, riddle me this: What is the point? God is mysterious, which means you'll never find the answers in him. Why not just search for them yourself?
Why do you think I don't?
-
Because you use the "God did it" argument on everything.
-
But if space was curved that much at that point then the particle force on each other a portion of that force would be 90 degrees from reality so if a particle is pushed 90 degrees from reality it could stretch space right?
First of all, you're not making any sense. Second of all, particles probably did not begin to form until some fraction of a second after the Big Bang itself.
-
But if space was curved that much at that point then the particle force on each other a portion of that force would be 90 degrees from reality so if a particle is pushed 90 degrees from reality it could stretch space right?
First of all, you're not making any sense. Second of all, particles probably did not begin to form until some fraction of a second after the Big Bang itself.
Okay lets look at a second dimension representation. now if it is flat and you have equal and opposite forces acting upon a particle. space would not affected. However if that was in a shape of a ball. now if we had two forces acting upon it that were equal but opposite to each other there would be a component of the forces facing away from the center of the sphere.
-
Okay lets look at a second dimension representation. now if it is flat and you have equal and opposite forces acting upon a particle. space would not affected. However if that was in a shape of a ball. now if we had two forces acting upon it that were equal but opposite to each other there would be a component of the forces facing away from the center of the sphere.
Forces are an attribute of the Universe. You can't apply the concept of a force from an outsider's perspective. All field lines would curve along with spacetime, not simply go outside of it.
-
Okay lets look at a second dimension representation. now if it is flat and you have equal and opposite forces acting upon a particle. space would not affected. However if that was in a shape of a ball. now if we had two forces acting upon it that were equal but opposite to each other there would be a component of the forces facing away from the center of the sphere.
Forces are an attribute of the Universe. You can't apply the concept of a force from an outsider's perspective. All field lines would curve along with spacetime, not simply go outside of it.
Okay I am not trying to be insulting but how sure of this are you and do you have the education to back up that certainty.
-
Okay I am not trying to be insulting but how sure of this are you and do you have the education to back up that certainty.
I am completely sure of this, and if noticing that massive objects possessing magnetic fields are not pushed outside the Universe by other magnetic fields counts as education, then yes I do.
-
Okay I am not trying to be insulting but how sure of this are you and do you have the education to back up that certainty.
I am completely sure of this, and if noticing that massive objects possessing magnetic fields are not pushed outside the Universe by other magnetic fields counts as education, then yes I do.
Based on the size of the universe it would be pretty much flat for any interaction of particles so they would push directly on each other and would have no noticeable component that would push them out. Second I said it would push the universe out with the matter so you wouldn't notice the an interaction that did happen.
-
You can't push anything out of the universe.
If you did it would no longer exist.
-
You can't push anything out of the universe.
If you did it would no longer exist.
I never said you would push something out of the universe I said I wondered if that would push out the boundaries of the universe and the matter together.
-
Based on the size of the universe it would be pretty much flat for any interaction of particles so they would push directly on each other and would have no noticeable component that would push them out. Second I said it would push the universe out with the matter so you wouldn't notice the an interaction that did happen.
So why don't atoms turn into black holes?
-
Based on the size of the universe it would be pretty much flat for any interaction of particles so they would push directly on each other and would have no noticeable component that would push them out. Second I said it would push the universe out with the matter so you wouldn't notice the an interaction that did happen.
So why don't atoms turn into black holes?
Because It would not get rid of that space just stretch it a little. Gravity stretches space but everything with gravity does not create black holes.
-
Because It would not get rid of that space just stretch it a little. Gravity stretches space but everything with gravity does not create black holes.
... ???
Let's ask that a different way:
Why would the gravitational well created by the nucleus of the atom not be deepened as the positively charged nucleus was pushed out of the Universe (dragging space along with it) by the negatively charged electron(s)?
-
Because It would not get rid of that space just stretch it a little. Gravity stretches space but everything with gravity does not create black holes.
... ???
+1
-
Because It would not get rid of that space just stretch it a little. Gravity stretches space but everything with gravity does not create black holes.
... ???
Let's ask that a different way:
Why would the gravitational well created by the nucleus of the atom not be deepened as the positively charged nucleus was pushed out of the Universe (dragging space along with it) by the negatively charged electron(s)?
Because Space is so big at this point that any small portion of space can be considered not curved. therefore the force would be pushing everything straight on and would not be pushing it at big enough to have an noticeable effect. The only time this affect would have been noticeable was when space was extremely curved like when the universe was small. You would notice the curve of a small ball more then you would notice the curve of a planet. Also the force of the negatively charged electrons wouldn't effect it that much because it is such a weak force compared to the forces that acted on in the middle of the big bang
-
Because Space is so big at this point that any small portion of space can be considered not curved. therefore the force would be pushing everything straight on and would not be pushing it at big enough to have an noticeable effect. The only time this affect would have been noticeable was when space was extremely curved like when the universe was small. You would notice the curve of a small ball more then you would notice the curve of a planet. Also the force of the negatively charged electrons wouldn't effect it that much because it is such a weak force compared to the forces that acted on in the middle of the big bang
I'd stop debating this if I were you. Every post you make simply makes you look more stupid than the last.
In case you don't want to stop, here is my rebuttal:
A gravitational well is simply curvature of spacetime, caused by the presence of mass-energy. Therefore, according to your hypothesis, there is always a component of the electrostatic force between electrons and atomic nuclei that points outside of space itself. I will concede that my one error in my last post was the direction of this component; instead of becoming black holes, atomic nuclei should lose their gravitational influence, meaning that everything made of atoms should stop attracting everything else.
Having said that, it doesn't matter if the instantaneous effect of this force is noticeable or not. You are suggesting that the forces in the Big Bang (which, by the way, you have not yet defined) set the Universe permanently expanding, rather than having it spring back to an equilibrium. By that same reasoning, a cumulative effect would take place in individual atoms, whereby after a few days, years or millions of years of existing they would eventually lose most of their gravitational influence. Assuming you agree that the Universe is more than 13 billion years old in the most commonly accepted form of the Big Bang model, how do you explain the fact that atoms seem to have had constant gravitational influence on each other since first they formed?
-
Because Space is so big at this point that any small portion of space can be considered not curved. therefore the force would be pushing everything straight on and would not be pushing it at big enough to have an noticeable effect. The only time this affect would have been noticeable was when space was extremely curved like when the universe was small. You would notice the curve of a small ball more then you would notice the curve of a planet. Also the force of the negatively charged electrons wouldn't effect it that much because it is such a weak force compared to the forces that acted on in the middle of the big bang
I'd stop debating this if I were you. Every post you make simply makes you look more stupid than the last.
In case you don't want to stop, here is my rebuttal:
A gravitational well is simply curvature of spacetime, caused by the presence of mass-energy. Therefore, according to your hypothesis, there is always a component of the electrostatic force between electrons and atomic nuclei that points outside of space itself. I will concede that my one error in my last post was the direction of this component; instead of becoming black holes, atomic nuclei should lose their gravitational influence, meaning that everything made of atoms should stop attracting everything else.
Having said that, it doesn't matter if the instantaneous effect of this force is noticeable or not. You are suggesting that the forces in the Big Bang (which, by the way, you have not yet defined) set the Universe permanently expanding, rather than having it spring back to an equilibrium. By that same reasoning, a cumulative effect would take place in individual atoms, whereby after a few days, years or millions of years of existing they would eventually lose most of their gravitational influence. Assuming you agree that the Universe is more than 13 billion years old in the most commonly accepted form of the Big Bang model, how do you explain the fact that atoms seem to have had constant gravitational influence on each other since first they formed?
Okay the reason that They would seem to have the same gravitational force is by the time atoms formed is that when they formed the universe would have all ready expanded a lot. Second This post you made many good points. I admit you are right
-
Hmm... I just wanted to point how beautifully Loop Quantum Gravity ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity ) answers many of the questions about the big bang. Considering how much bullshit string theory is for the most, LQG really seems to be the general direction a lot of research is headed in.
To explain the ramifications of it towards the big bang theory simply, when matter is super compressed gravity actually works a repellant force instead of an attractive force, leading to the explosion. Furthermore LQG theorizes that instead of time beginning at the big bang, a universe had collapsed, meaning that time is infinite and consists a never-ending cycle of collapse and expansion.
As far as the argument you guys are having about the end of space-time. Do you really want to mess with that, I don't really understand it as well I like and I've never really seen an adequate answer concerning what it actually is. But for the most part I would tend to side with Robosteve, you can't treat the end of the universe like a wall....
-
I wasn't talking about it pushing on the end of space time.
-
Well the Big Bang itself may be plausible but other connected ideas aren't
Like the assertion that the singularity was always there before the Big Bang. THat would imply time to be infinite.
Every division of infinity is infinity, so if time was infinite, every period of time would be infinite. The fact that we advanced from one moment to the next would mean we had passed an infinity which isn't possible. The only Logical conclusion? Time is finite. If it wasn't always here it was created and time has to be created by something living outside of time. (Eternal).
Likewise with matter and space because all 3 elements of the universe are relative to each other. If time hadn't always existed neither have matter/space. The creator of matter would have to be not consisted of matter (immaterial) and the creator of space must not occupy space (omnipotent). So whatever created the universe was omnipotent, eternal, and immaterial. What does that sound like?
Hello CrisMoser and members,
Your posted subject which is very fascinating from many perspectives caught my eye and read with interest the contributions of other members's views to the topic. Mine is that The Big Bang never happened but it has been an interesting theory that "filled a gap" with many supporters jumping into the bandwagon and others that jumped off before it crashes...
The "Big Bang" cosmological theory proposes that the entire universe began at a definite moment in the distant past at which time the universe was crammed into a point of infinite density. According to the Big Bang cosmological model, the universe began in a sort of explosion - starting out from infinite density and temperature - and then expanded, thinned out, and cooled. The Big Bang model holds that at all times subsequent to the universe's initial moment of creation, the universe has been controlled by gravity only, and its mathematical description thus follows logically from Einstein's theory of gravity.
The Big Bang theory of the origin and evolution of the universe began to develop major problems throughout the 1970's and 1980's as new astronomical observations became inconsistent with more and more of its theoretical underpinnings: generally, the astronomical observations simply did not square with a system controlled only by gravitational forces. Such observations have resulted in the current "crisis in cosmology" which begs for the Big Bang theory to be replaced with another cosmological model.
If galaxies were flying away from each other, they would have been closer together in the past; thus it was felt that the universe was more dense at earlier times. If this backward extrapolation were continued, there would be some definite moment in the past when all matter in the universe was crammed together in a state of almost infinite density. From the rate of expansion, when this point in time occurred could be estimated: about 10 - 15 billion years ago. This concept of the beginning of the universe came to be called the "Big Bang" model, according to which the universe began in a sort of explosion, starting out from infinite density and temperature, and then expanded, thinned out, and cooled. The Big Bang model logically follows from Einstein's theory of gravity to provide a mathematical description of the universe.
The Big Bang was not like an ordinary explosion in which a localized region of flying debris spreads out into a surrounding region of non-moving space, but instead it was to have occurred everywhere. Under such a view there would be no surrounding space for the universe to move into, because any such space would be part of the universe; the concept of the individual particles in the universe flying away from one another is like marks on the surface of a balloon all receding from one another as the balloon is blown up.
Today, in a trend reminiscent of the methods of Ptolemaic astronomers until Copernicus came to the rescue, cosmologists are ignoring facts that fail to fit the Big Bang model. When the theoretical model first appeared, it was a reasonable and seemingly scientific explanation for a relatively small amount of astronomical data taken earlier in the century: it was consistent with the Hubble redshift of galaxies and large-scale expansion; it seemed to explain the observed abundances of light elements such as helium and hydrogen which had not been created in the fusion furnaces of existing stars, but created in the earliest moments of the Big Bang. In what probably was its finest hour, the Big Bang model predicted the microwave background radiation at about the temperature that was consistent with a creation explosion out of a formless nothingness 15 billion years or so ago.
However, the troubling observational and theoretical problems of the 70's and 80's increasingly have challenged the Big Bang model. The Big Bang model also began having more and more difficulty reconciling the latest observational details found by astronomers with the fundamental assumption that on the galactic and cosmic scales gravity was the sole player. In other words, the theory failed to explain convincingly how matter had become organized in clusters of galaxies and superclusters in the time period allotted since the Big Bang.
Also for the universe to be structured in a manner consistent with current observations, more than 90 percent of its matter would have to be in the form of some unknown, unseen, but unbelievable massive dark matter which would not only have to be present in such a huge quantity that it would account gravitationally for the size and behavior of the new clusters and superclusters, but it also would have to be of such a bizarre quality that it could not possibly be detected by even the most sophisticated technology.
For instance, gravity working alone would have taken something like 100 billion years to create the supercluster two and a half billion light-years across that was recently discovered by American and German observers. This was a time scale at least five times longer than permitted by even the most generous of the Big Bang models.
To salvage the Big Bang, theorists have brought in a number of ad hoc assumptions such as inflation, to supposedly cause the universe to expand exponentially, but which suffers from the same malady as the Big Bang, an inability to make predictions that can be tested.
Today the long odds are that the Big Bang never happened. Perhaps the Big Bang was just a "big splash," a stellar disgorgement in our little neighborhood of the universe that was neither the beginning of time nor the creation of the cosmos.
How long will the Big Bang theory survive? Whether the Big Bang goes down in five years or twenty-give years, it appears inevitable that it soon will be overwhelmed by more and more uncompromising new observations and experimentation. In the next century or sooner, scientists and other people looking back likely will regard it much the way we look back on the cosmology of Aristotle, a quaint theory that people believed in for a while. My 2c
-
Before, there was nothing...
...which exploded.
And that just shows how little you know of...pretty much everything.