The Big Bang

  • 155 Replies
  • 31243 Views
*

CrisMoser

  • 20
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #30 on: February 20, 2009, 07:18:10 AM »
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.

*

Benocrates

  • 3072
  • +0/-0
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #31 on: February 20, 2009, 07:28:45 AM »
Again, over your head.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

*

CrisMoser

  • 20
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #32 on: February 20, 2009, 07:36:38 AM »
Again, over your head.

Don't tell me your one of those "Spactime, layered Universe, 11th dimension" scifi guys

*

Benocrates

  • 3072
  • +0/-0
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #33 on: February 20, 2009, 07:39:57 AM »
I'm saying your thinking is not on the level required to discuss the legitimacy of the big bang theory.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #34 on: February 20, 2009, 07:51:22 AM »
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.

PROTIP: Just because you don't understand it (yet) doesn't make it "scifi".

?

KingMan

  • 3025
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #35 on: February 20, 2009, 09:23:04 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?
I hate myself for coming here

*

CrisMoser

  • 20
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #36 on: February 20, 2009, 09:28:08 AM »
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.

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.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #37 on: February 20, 2009, 01:57:24 PM »

*

Wendy

  • 18427
  • +0/-0
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #38 on: February 20, 2009, 02:38:18 PM »
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.

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?
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

?

KingMan

  • 3025
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #39 on: February 20, 2009, 02:42:17 PM »
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.

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 hate myself for coming here

*

Euclid

  • 942
  • +1/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #40 on: February 20, 2009, 02:46:49 PM »
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.

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)

*

Euclid

  • 942
  • +1/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #41 on: February 20, 2009, 02:57:53 PM »
Quote
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.

Quote
Why did it explode at all?

Unknown, and I suspect science will never know.

Quote
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.
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)

*

Wendy

  • 18427
  • +0/-0
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #42 on: February 20, 2009, 02:58:08 PM »
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.

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.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2009, 03:00:54 PM by Wendy »
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

*

Euclid

  • 942
  • +1/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #43 on: February 20, 2009, 03:08:57 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2009, 03:11:02 PM by Euclid »
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)

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #44 on: February 20, 2009, 03:14:32 PM »
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.

*

Euclid

  • 942
  • +1/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #45 on: February 20, 2009, 03:17:50 PM »
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.
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)

*

Wendy

  • 18427
  • +0/-0
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #46 on: February 20, 2009, 03:29:04 PM »
I call it interesting, yet irrelevant.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

*

optimisticcynic

  • 2194
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #47 on: February 22, 2009, 10:00:57 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?
could it be because Andromeda is close enough that the acceleration do to gravity is greater the the acceleration of the universe.? 
You can't outrun death forever
But you can sure make the old bastard work for it.

?

JoshuaZ

  • 351
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #48 on: February 23, 2009, 07:28:54 AM »
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.


?

Sir_Drainsalot

  • 2798
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #49 on: February 23, 2009, 07:38:36 AM »
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?

Quote
Why is matter so evenly disperced over the Universe

It isnt.

?

KingMan

  • 3025
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #50 on: February 23, 2009, 09:18:56 AM »
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.
I hate myself for coming here

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #51 on: February 23, 2009, 09:38:39 AM »
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?

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #52 on: February 23, 2009, 09:41:22 AM »
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?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

KingMan

  • 3025
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #53 on: February 23, 2009, 09:43:21 AM »
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.
I hate myself for coming here

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13115
  • +0/-0
  • swiggity swooty
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #54 on: February 23, 2009, 09:45:21 AM »
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.

?

KingMan

  • 3025
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #55 on: February 23, 2009, 09:47:30 AM »
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?
I hate myself for coming here

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #56 on: February 23, 2009, 09:49:05 AM »
If God has always been, what do you think was before the Big Bang?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

KingMan

  • 3025
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #57 on: February 23, 2009, 09:51:59 AM »
If God has always been, what do you think was before the Big Bang?
I don't think the big Bang happened.
I hate myself for coming here

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 26966
  • +0/-0
  • I'm the boss.
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #58 on: February 23, 2009, 09:55:20 AM »
So what do you think happened before God said "Let there be light" then?
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

KingMan

  • 3025
  • +0/-0
Re: The Big Bang
« Reply #59 on: February 23, 2009, 09:58:39 AM »
So what do you think happened before God said "Let there be light" then?
Time is not a factor for God, only for us.
I hate myself for coming here