Big Bang Theory

There is a difficulty with the cyclic model in that no one knows what it means.

The problem is that time, as defined scientifically, can not exist without space. No other definition of time makes sense since time as we perceive it doesn't exist without us perceiving it... this is difficult to understand or believe but mathematically it is true.

So asking what happened a second after the big bang is a realistic question that can be answered mathematically. There was space and so there were seconds that could be measured and the math all works out.

Asking what happened a second before the Big Bang is a question that no one even knows what this mean... since in our current mathematical understanding time started with the Big Bang. This question is like asking what you were thinking before you were conceived.

So asking if the Universe was contracting before the Big Bang is problematic. The current math can't even tell you want "before" means... there simply was no before since time started when the Universe started.

0 Replies

Nothing comes from nothing. This theory is a violation of the Law of Conservation of mass and energy. Prove that this law is invalid for all the scientific formulas rests on this law. It is a nice theory. But no ones can go back to the Big Bang and prove it.

0 Replies

Father George Lemaitre didnt actually coin the term . He , like Darwin's "evolution" was a term coined by others.Lemaitre called it "the Cosmic Egg eggsploding at the moment of Creation" ..His critic actually coined the term "Big BAng" as a bit of ridicule. Like the "Impressionists" was also a term of derision.

I know that Hubble is given credit for the theory , but Hubble was the discoverer only of the "redshift' phenom and Lemaitre, already taking Einsteins gen Theory to its next level, proposed the BB theory based upon cosmo dynamics and "doin the math". Einstein, liked the math,(why shouldnt he, it was based on his work) BUT Albert couldnt accept anything that didnt agree with his own "steady state" theory. Einstein was, later, sorry for not getting a lot of things , like Quantum theory, as well as Big Bang, and he , near the end of his life said that Big BAng was one of the things he regreted most, not having jumped on the bandwagon for.

0 Replies

Talk, the inflaton that is described by the singularity is recently being posed as the intersection points of two cosmol;ogical membranes , or even more radically, the singularity is all the stuff shooting in from a totally different but parallel universe. Stuff gets funky at the edges of the intersections of all forces. When all forces merge they have to do it while obeying certain fundamental laws.

One of the laws that may be broken is the "speed of light" barrier. Scientists up at Lincoln lab have already esceeded "c" in experimental apparatus. This means that a particle travelling faster than "c" should actually arrive before it leaves the one side of the barrier but in an earlier ground state, because once C is broken we travel back in time, as we approach c, we travel ahead in time, so the ground state is an earlier state(this can be done with specific isotopes).

Ive attended so many seminars at Princeton on the discussions of M and Branes that I have flashbacks of past tests in subjects like Sociology where new phrase were generated daily and most without any discernable meaning. Id sit in these seminars and drool ( I was thinking of learning to apply something of wave propogation in solid state geophysics,) well I learned that( at least in my limited understanding)I thought that some of these guys were actual aliens bent on giving us the rudiments of their technology while leaving out key parts.

0 Replies

Re: Big Bang Theory

kickycan wrote:

It seems that there are theories, and then there are THEORIES. Like for example, evolution. This one seems to be widely accepted by science as fact, although it is, technically, still only a theory.

How about the Big Bang though? Is that one widely accepted by science as fact? Just how comfortable is science with this theory?

Some Christians who don't know any better like to talk about the big bang idea thinking it somehow validates Christianity.

In actual fact the big bang is bad science and bad theology rolled into a package deal. Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the ultimate black hole; Nothing would ever bang its way out of that.

Likewise it's basically idiotic to think that an omnipotent and omniscent God would suddenly have figured out that it would be cool to create a universe around 17 billion years ago. Why would he not have figured that out 17 trillion or 17 quadrillion years ago??

Big Bang was never based on anything more substantial than a wrong interpretation of redshift data. Do your own google searches on "Halton Arp" for the story on that one.

Then again, for an idea of what truly serious physicists and the like think of the idea, check this out:

http://cosmologystatement.org/

0 Replies

lessee here gunga.
Youve ot contrary ideas about
genetics

geology
physics
chemistry
cosmology
evolution
immunology

Jever think that maybe they didnt teach you jack **** at Hillbilly U?

0 Replies

Re: Big Bang Theory

gungasnake wrote:

kickycan wrote:
In actual fact the big bang is bad science and bad theology rolled into a package deal. Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the ultimate black hole; Nothing would ever bang its way out of that.

That's an inaccurate representation of the actual theory, as usual, but more importantly (and more entertainingly), what is your proposed theory to explain all the physics of the Universe as we currently know them?

0 Replies

gunga

Quote:

In actual fact the big bang is bad science and bad theology rolled into a package deal. Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the ultimate black hole; Nothing would ever bang its way out of that.

. WOW, that convincing gunga. Where do I sign up for my Reynold wrap beret?

Your theology is based upon a command and control God who has ordered that there be written an inerrant book of stories. How did you come to accept them all without even a twinge of doubt?
You wouldnt like Jesuits, they teached us to question everything , even to doubt thoseChristians who , through no fault of their own, beyond a gullible nature and a need to be part of a chain of comand, would take an otherwise
neat book of legends and lessons and accept it as all true.

Somehow I think what gunga will come up with next is a tstimony to DDT or else some published list of yahoos who, like "Food Scientists Gone Wild" profess that, through their binoculars, evolution and other support sciences are Bullshit.

Well, its all the Bullscat thats made your life both a pleasure and a living nightmare.

No contrary evidence of the types you espouse has ever added one jot t our recent storehouses of knowledge. Im saying that "Post 1907 the fight was all over and no Millenialist . Flood preaching, Creation bearing Pseudo scientists have added anything to the vast storeouse of knowledge. And if they did, they were acting (like Russ Humphries, your guy) quietly practicing value neutral geophysics. Value neutral where Russ works on the software and the geologists work on the interpretations .

Or how Steve Palumbi has destroyed your DDT BS. quite easily.

0 Replies

0 Replies

I'm starting to think I ought to reply to "farmerman"'s BS in his own language, i.e.

"Oink oink oink oink oink oink oink, heee-hawww heee-hawww, woof wooof.....

0 Replies

I mean, how can anybody make that much noise without ever contributing anything to a discussion?

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

Nothing comes from nothing. This theory is a violation of the Law of Conservation of mass and energy. Prove that this law is invalid for all the scientific formulas rests on this law. It is a nice theory. But no ones can go back to the Big Bang and prove it.

Please explain why you think this law is a violation of the law of Conservation of Mass and Energy. (BTW it doesn't since according to the theory all of the "Mass and Energy" could have simply existed from the first instant of the Big Bang.)

One of my pet peeves is religious people using the the simplest misunderstandings of scientific principles to "disprove" the parts of science they feel disagree with their religion.

One of my bigger pet peeves is when they based on these misunderstandings try to lecture people who actually understand the real science.

If you had the understanding that you would gain in a couple of semesters of science education, the point I think you are trying to make would seem as foolish to you as it does to the rest of us who understand the theory.

0 Replies

Oh, yeah, "How old is the Universe?"

The universe as a collection of electrons, neutrons, and protons is probably eternal. At least, I don't know of any reason to think otherwise.

ALL of the creation stories we read in ancient literature appear to be stories related to the creation of our living world, which may only be a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of years old.

Again, last summer they broke a tyranosaur leg bone open and this is what they found:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050324/050324_trex_softtissue_hlg10a.hlarge.jpg

The MSNBC Version of the Story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

Very obviously, that stuff is not tens of millions of years old. I've seen three week old roadkill which looks worse.

0 Replies

farmerman, the math on membranes were probably stolen from elastic membranes, plates in engineering. I read about the parallel universes which is conceivablebut to put out the Big Bang Theory just by itself is like the Biblical Genesis creation.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Scientists up at Lincoln lab have already esceeded "c" in experimental apparatus.

MIT Lincoln Laboratory researchers? I could find no link.

0 Replies

Re: Big Bang Theory

gungasnake wrote:

Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the ultimate black hole; Nothing would ever bang its way out of that.

What makes you say that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Entropy_and_Hawking_radiation

I believe that Stephen Hawking found out that black holes have a finite life and can in the end, die in an explosion of radiation.

0 Replies

Gunga still wonte evr answer questions , he drops in, drops a couple of turds, and then departs. So far he hasnt added or detracted from a discussion.

AS far as the Trex. Obviously you havent considered the alternative , that soft tissue can be fossilized while retaining flexibility. Im waiting for a journal article that discusses the chemical makeup before getting all jumping to conclusions. There are pockets of waxy material that has been fossilized from living plant matter in the sediments of the Permian and Even older Pennsylvanian strata.

The very fact that the Trex is over 60 million years is no doubt. The location has been accurately dated by at least 4 separate and complementary techniques. Further the strata overlying the Hell Creek has been carefully ID'd.
You just have problems with how geology works yet you havent a clue what it does.or how it does it.

Chumly, my source on the "c"" experimemnt came from the Intitute of Regulatory Science members about 2 years ago. I hadnt followed up on the experiment lately. Ill look around and see whats worth quoting.

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

farmerman, the math on membranes were probably stolen from elastic membranes, plates in engineering. I read about the parallel universes which is conceivablebut to put out the Big Bang Theory just by itself is like the Biblical Genesis creation.

No. There is a lot of difference between the Biblical Genesis creation-- a religous text in which a literal understanding is contradicted by what we observe and measure, and the Big Bang which was developed to explain a scientific observation and has since been backed up by rigorous tests.

There are lots of scientific reasons to believe the Big Bang is the proper explaination of how the Universe started. The first evidence was Hubble expansion which is a mathematical fact about objects in the Universe that has continued to be true even as we have developed stronger telescopes and new instruments. We have since tested the Big Bang by predicting the type of background radiation we would expect to see if a Big Bang happened and then going out and finding it. We have since developed new tests such as looking at the chemistry of comets and other matter in our solar system, and developing models of other objects we would expect to find in space.

All of these tests are pretty conclusive. The Big Bang is the only explanation for the first fiew moments of the Universe that can come close to explaining what we have observed and measured. This is how science works.

So we have the Genesis account, which if taken literally is contradicted by many observations-- starting with the existance of Dinosaur bones... and preceeding to the fact that we know the stars are older than our sun (not to mention biological evidence).

And we have science... which is based on observation and experiment. Nearly all scientists accept the Big Bang as the correct scientific explanation because the evidence is nearly conclusive.

There is also a third category which you all are touching on-- that of scientific conjecture. The theories of multiple Universes certainly don't contradict anything we have learned by observation and experiment, but the problem is they are currently un-testable. There is no way to test these assertions.. and in truth no one really can define mathematically what they would mean anyway.

So these are for now interesting conjectures, are based on science and are not known to be false... but they are also untested scientifically and should are not at all the same thing as the Big Bang which is considered as the correct scientific explanation by the scientific community.

0 Replies

Re: Big Bang Theory

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Entropy_and_Hawking_radiation

I believe that Stephen Hawking found out that black holes have a finite life and can in the end, die in an explosion of radiation.

This threadhad an interesting theory on Black Holes. I have yet to hear any strong counter arguments to the quantum shell theory discussed here. It sounds like many of the paramaters of the theory explain existing evidence better than current Black Hole theories.

0 Replies

Re: Big Bang Theory

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would be the ultimate black hole; Nothing would ever bang its way out of that.

What makes you say that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole#Entropy_and_Hawking_radiation

I believe that Stephen Hawking found out that black holes have a finite life and can in the end, die in an explosion of radiation.

One, Stephen Hawking is a hardcore ideologue and an idiot and, two, there is no such thing in reality as a black hole.

Educate yourself:

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/

Quote:

An equation is only a model of the real world process. We should never lose sight of this distinction. Some modern day "theoretical physicists" confuse these two things: reality and the model. For them, the equations are indistinguishable from reality. So, if an equation contains a "singularity" (gives an output value of infinity for some value of the input variable[s]) they presume the actual real world quantity must also become infinite. This is where the notion of "black holes" came from.

0 Replies

Big Bang Theory

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know