« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   Go Down

The Big Bang

  • 155 Replies
  • 31233 Views
*

CrisMoser

  • 20
  • +0/-0
The Big Bang
« 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)
Logged
?

Mykael

  • 4240
  • +0/-0
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2009, 08:27:49 PM »
Before, there was nothing...


...which exploded.
Logged
?

Proleg

Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #2 on: February 19, 2009, 08:37:35 PM »
What's your point?
Logged
*

CrisMoser

  • 20
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #3 on: February 19, 2009, 08:46:27 PM »
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.
Logged
?

Proleg

Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #4 on: February 19, 2009, 08:51:01 PM »
How does it explain God's method?
Logged
*

CrisMoser

  • 20
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #5 on: February 19, 2009, 08:53:50 PM »
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.
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #6 on: February 19, 2009, 09:00:13 PM »
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.
Logged
*

CrisMoser

  • 20
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #7 on: February 19, 2009, 09:13:03 PM »
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?
Logged
?

Proleg

Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #8 on: February 19, 2009, 09:15:57 PM »
Quote from: Hara Taiki on February 19, 2009, 09:00:13 PM
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.
Logged
*

Euclid

  • 942
  • +1/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #9 on: February 19, 2009, 09:20:56 PM »
Quote from: CrisMoser on February 19, 2009, 09:13:03 PM

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.

Quote
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.
Logged
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #10 on: February 19, 2009, 09:21:18 PM »
Quote from: Proleg on February 19, 2009, 09:15:57 PM
Quote from: Hara Taiki on February 19, 2009, 09:00:13 PM
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.
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #11 on: February 19, 2009, 09:22:16 PM »
Quote from: Euclid on February 19, 2009, 09:20:56 PM
Quote from: CrisMoser on February 19, 2009, 09:13:03 PM

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.

Quote
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.
Logged
*

CrisMoser

  • 20
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #12 on: February 19, 2009, 09:27:16 PM »
Quote
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.
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2009, 09:29:51 PM »
Quote from: CrisMoser on February 19, 2009, 09:27:16 PM
Quote
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.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2009, 09:33:14 PM by Hara Taiki »
Logged
?

Proleg

Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2009, 09:31:12 PM »
Why did Hara throw his clock out of a window?

Because time does not exist.
Logged
*

CrisMoser

  • 20
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #15 on: February 19, 2009, 09:42:28 PM »
Quote from: Proleg on February 19, 2009, 09:31:12 PM
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.
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #16 on: February 19, 2009, 09:45:23 PM »
Quote from: CrisMoser on February 19, 2009, 09:42:28 PM
Quote from: Proleg on February 19, 2009, 09:31:12 PM
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".
Logged
?

KingMan

  • 3025
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #17 on: February 19, 2009, 09:47:22 PM »
Quote from: Mykael on February 19, 2009, 08:27:49 PM
Before, there was nothing...


...which exploded.
Win
Logged
I hate myself for coming here
*

Euclid

  • 942
  • +1/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #18 on: February 19, 2009, 09:49:19 PM »
Quote from: KingMan on February 19, 2009, 09:47:22 PM
Quote from: Mykael on February 19, 2009, 08:27:49 PM
Before, there was nothing...


...which exploded.
Win

There was no before.  Fail.   :P
Logged
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)
?

KingMan

  • 3025
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #19 on: February 19, 2009, 09:51:14 PM »
Quote from: Euclid on February 19, 2009, 09:49:19 PM
Quote from: KingMan on February 19, 2009, 09:47:22 PM
Quote from: Mykael on February 19, 2009, 08:27:49 PM
Before, there was nothing...


...which exploded.
Win

There was no before.  Fail.   :P
So time didn't exist? It's still WIN. 8)
Logged
I hate myself for coming here
*

Euclid

  • 942
  • +1/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #20 on: February 19, 2009, 09:54:56 PM »
Quote from: KingMan on February 19, 2009, 09:51:14 PM
Quote from: Euclid on February 19, 2009, 09:49:19 PM
Quote from: KingMan on February 19, 2009, 09:47:22 PM
Quote from: Mykael on February 19, 2009, 08:27:49 PM
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)
Logged
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)
?

KingMan

  • 3025
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #21 on: February 19, 2009, 09:59:13 PM »
Quote from: Euclid on February 19, 2009, 09:54:56 PM
Quote from: KingMan on February 19, 2009, 09:51:14 PM
Quote from: Euclid on February 19, 2009, 09:49:19 PM
Quote from: KingMan on February 19, 2009, 09:47:22 PM
Quote from: Mykael on February 19, 2009, 08:27:49 PM
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?
Logged
I hate myself for coming here
*

Euclid

  • 942
  • +1/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #22 on: February 19, 2009, 10:01:03 PM »
I don't know it didn't exist.  I'm merely presenting the current interpretation of Big Bang theory.
Logged
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)
?

KingMan

  • 3025
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #23 on: February 19, 2009, 10:02:41 PM »
Logged
I hate myself for coming here
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #24 on: February 19, 2009, 10:07:05 PM »
Quote from: KingMan on February 19, 2009, 09:59:13 PM
Quote from: Euclid on February 19, 2009, 09:54:56 PM
Quote from: KingMan on February 19, 2009, 09:51:14 PM
Quote from: Euclid on February 19, 2009, 09:49:19 PM
Quote from: KingMan on February 19, 2009, 09:47:22 PM
Quote from: Mykael on February 19, 2009, 08:27:49 PM
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.
Logged
?

Proleg

Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #25 on: February 19, 2009, 10:08:47 PM »
Religions change and adapt, science advances.
Logged
*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #26 on: February 19, 2009, 10:09:33 PM »
Quote from: Proleg on February 19, 2009, 10:08:47 PM
Religions change and adapt, science advances.

Religion never fixes itself truly, though. Science advances and corrects itself.
Logged
*

Euclid

  • 942
  • +1/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #27 on: February 19, 2009, 10:10:13 PM »
Quote from: KingMan on February 19, 2009, 10:02:41 PM
Quote from: Euclid on February 19, 2009, 10:01:03 PM
I don't know it didn't exist. 

Quote from: Euclid on February 19, 2009, 09:54:56 PM
Quote from: KingMan on February 19, 2009, 09:51:14 PM
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.
Logged
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)
?

Proleg

Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #28 on: February 19, 2009, 10:12:33 PM »
Quote from: Hara Taiki on February 19, 2009, 10:09:33 PM
Quote from: Proleg on February 19, 2009, 10:08:47 PM
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.
Logged
?

KingMan

  • 3025
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #29 on: February 20, 2009, 06:09:15 AM »
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?
Logged
I hate myself for coming here
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6   Go Up
« previous next »