How can anyone in their right mind still believe in the big bang theory?

[gtrsgrls]

I'm doing a speach in my public speaking class on disproving the big bang theory.It is amazing all the evidence against.The funny thing is that I spent about 2 hours looking for evidence to support it, and I could only come up with about 5 or 6 things.But there are tons of peices of evidence disproving the theory.Here is some of the reasons why the big bang theory is crap.
1.It violatest the law of thermodynamics which states "Matter cannot be created or destryed." But the theory states that at one time something called singularity(about the size of a dime)started spinning and started throwing all this matter all over the universe creating planets and stars and things.
2.The theory states that singularity started spinning and throwing stuff out.If this was true,all the planets would be rotating the same way.Venus and Uranus are rotating opposite of all the other ones.
I could go on and on about reasons why it is retarded but I don't have all day.Also,just think about our world for a second.Don't you think it's a little bit odd that all the planets in our solar system are in perfect balance?Don't you see it a little bit odd that humans breath oxygen and put out carbon dioxide,plants breath carbon dioxide and put out oxygen.There are things like this all over the universe.Don't you think it's a little bit weird that everything is so perfect?It sure sounds like it was planned to me!

 

[michel]

I'm doing a speach in my public speaking class on disproving the big bang theory.It is amazing all the evidence against.The funny thing is that I spent about 2 hours looking for evidence to support it, and I could only come up with about 5 or 6 things.But there are tons of peices of evidence disproving the theory.Here is some of the reasons why the big bang theory is crap.

1.It violatest the law of thermodynamics which states "Matter cannot be created or destryed." But the theory states that at one time something called singularity(about the size of a dime)started spinning and started throwing all this matter all over the universe creating planets and stars and things.

Ah well, you are neglecting the string theory.

2.The theory states that singularity started spinning and throwing stuff out.If this was true,all the planets would be rotating the same way.Venus and Uranus are rotating opposite of all the other ones.

Why ? - that is not in the least necessarily true.


I could go on and on about reasons why it is retarded but I don't have all day.Also,just think about our world for a second.

Don't you think it's a little bit odd that all the planets in our solar system are in perfect balance?

They aren't.

Don't you see it a little bit odd that humans breath oxygen and put out carbon dioxide,plants breath carbon dioxide and put out oxygen.There are things like this all over the universe.Don't you think it's a little bit weird that everything is so perfect?

There is no way that it is perfect; but then, who said evolution had to be perfect ? A lot fell by the wayside.

It sure sounds like it was planned to me!

Is that because you would like to think that way, or because you do ?

if it is because that is 'a convenient explanation' there are others you could look at.

 

[gtrsgrls]

That's right michael,you sit there and state how wrong I am but you have nothing to back it up.Sounds fishy to me.

 

[michel]

That's right michael,you sit there and state how wrong I am but you have nothing to back it up.Sounds fishy to me.

Fishy ? - no not me; I had my annual bath last week......:biglaugh:

Back what up ? I am not the scientist and quantum physicist round here; nor do I understand threads.

I can give you a link to a few threads where the big bang has been explained as satisfying the realms of possibility, so I have an open mind. Besides, evolution is for real.

But then, I know a guy who can...........Well, you did invite me.......
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
[font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory. [/font]

[font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions
There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we. [/font]



[font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?

• First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
• Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
• Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
• Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

[/font]

[font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4

In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950. [/font]

[font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article. We just ask the question: [/font]

[font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Does God Exist![/font]



[font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Footnotes:

1. Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36.
2. Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.
3. Mark Eastman, Chuck Missler, The Creator: Beyond Time and Space, (1996) p. 11.
4. W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.
5. See http://www.halos.com/reports/ext-2003-022.pdf
6. See http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-rosetta.pdf and http://www.halos.com/reports/ext-2003-021.pdf; see also http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-redshift.pdf and http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-affirmed.pdf

[/font]

 

[gtrsgrls]

Fishy ? - no not me; I had my annual bath last week......:biglaugh:

Back what up ? I am not the scientist and quantum physicist round here; nor do I understand threads.

I can give you a link to a few threads where the big bang has been explained as satisfying the realms of possibility, so I have an open mind. Besides, evolution is for real.

But then, I know a guy who can...........Well, you did invite me.......
http://www.big-bang-theory.com/
[font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory. [/font]

[font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Big Bang Theory - Common Misconceptions
There are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Another misconception is that we tend to image the singularity as a little fireball appearing somewhere in space. According to the many experts however, space didn't exist prior to the Big Bang. Back in the late '60s and early '70s, when men first walked upon the moon, "three British astrophysicists, Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose turned their attention to the Theory of Relativity and its implications regarding our notions of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to include measurements of time and space.1, 2 According to their calculations, time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy."3 The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we. [/font]



[font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Big Bang Theory - Evidence for the Theory
What are the major evidences which support the Big Bang theory?

• First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
• Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
• Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
• Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.

[/font]

[font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one. Internationally renown Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."4

In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950. [/font]

[font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Big Bang Theory - What About God?
Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article. We just ask the question: [/font]

[font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Does God Exist![/font]



[font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica]Footnotes:

1. Steven W. Hawking, George F.R. Ellis, "The Cosmic Black-Body Radiation and the Existence of Singularities in our Universe," Astrophysical Journal, 152, (1968) pp. 25-36.
2. Steven W. Hawking, Roger Penrose, "The Singularities of Gravitational Collapse and Cosmology," Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, 314 (1970) pp. 529-548.
3. Mark Eastman, Chuck Missler, The Creator: Beyond Time and Space, (1996) p. 11.
4. W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.
5. See http://www.halos.com/reports/ext-2003-022.pdf
6. See http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-rosetta.pdf and http://www.halos.com/reports/ext-2003-021.pdf; see also http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-redshift.pdf and http://www.halos.com/reports/arxiv-1998-affirmed.pdf

[/font]

Strangely enough,I just finished reading this article right before you posted it.And I agree,evolution is for real.I believe that evolution started happening right after God created everything.And I ment for you to back up your claim that I was wrong.

 

[ChrisP]

That's right michael,you sit there and state how wrong I am but you have nothing to back it up.Sounds fishy to me.

Hello GTRSGirl.

Firstly, I would just like to know if your name has anything to do with cars?

Secondly, I am a theist, but I really hate to see things like "how can anyone in their right mind......"

What is a right mind? (That's rhetorical.)

Also, people who believe the big bang theory, place their beliefs in the things they can trust/see. Solid Tangible things. Their faith (and I believe it is a faith) is that these things can be interpreted to read that the world designed itself, not created, as they believe all matter has been around forever and ever, though where this matter came from is a mystery. So really they have faith that everything has always been will always be and can be interpreted by what they can see touch taste feel smell (quantify/qualify).

IMHO this shows more faith than a creationist as they must believe that there has been billions of years of uncontrolled mutation and naturalist experimentation, resulting in what we see today.

They do not defy the laws of thermodynamics as : A world with no beginning has no end

The universe is already disorderly and unsystematic and so therefore proves the second law (if it ever was orderly).

Again ,only in my opinion, there are too many interwoven systems of beautiful and lovely design for a lot of people to believe that happened this way randomly, and through the natural process that followed.

That doesn't mean we have the right to ridicule their beliefs. They believe them because they believe them to be true.

 

[michel]

Strangely enough,I just finished reading this article right before you posted it.And I agree,evolution is for real.I believe that evolution started happening right after God created everything.And I ment for you to back up your claim that I was wrong.

there you are; I knew if I waited long enough someone would come to my help. What he says..........:biglaugh:

 

[gtrsgrls]

That doesn't mean we have the right to ridicule their beliefs. They believe them because they believe them to be true.

No,my name doesn't have anything to do with cars.I chose that "gtrsgrls" because I think the two best things in the world are guitars and girls.Ya,I know,it's kinda stupid.And you're right I shoudn't have ridiculed the belief of those who believe in the big bang.I appologize to all I offended.Thanks for keeping me in line!

 

[gtrsgrls]

there you are; I knew if I waited long enough someone would come to my help. What he says..........:biglaugh:

What are you talking about?:areyoucra

 

[Ryan2065]

Reposting my explanation of the big bang theory...

Here is the current theory of how matter and all you know came into being in a nut shell. I am putting this is very un-scientific terms and will try to explain it to the best of my ability.

One thing that we do know is that our universe is expanding. This has been proven through the use of different equations and using the wavelengths of certain galaxies. Basically there is a red shift when looking at the wavelengths of different galaxies. The farther the galaxy is from us, the greater the red shift. This red shift is not in agreement with a "dopler shift" which is where the actual body is moving away from us. What it is in consistence with however, is that the space inbetween the galaxies is expanding, which makes the wavelengths longer, which causes the red shift.

Now that we know the universe is expanding, we can move on to the big bang theory. We are not positive if the universe expands and contracts, or just expands until infinity. We don't know this because we have never actually witnessed the universe contract. What we do know, from x-ray analysis in space, is that there is a certain xray wavelength that is found throughout the galaxy and that measures approx 2.73 K (well around there) in temperature (this is known as the cosmic microwave background). Due to this fact, and many other facts we have observed, a conclusion was drawn. A long long time ago, it is thought that the universe was basically one big light. There was no matter at all, just photons (aka, light). We know currently that when two photons collide, you CAN form a Hydrogen atom if the reaction is violent enough. The universe when it was very young, was so hot, there were no atoms at all, but there were photons. These photons would collide with each other and form Hydrogen (this is actually hypothesied with the equation E=mc^2 which reads that energy can form mass) The universe, however, expands. As you all know, you take a space heater into a very small room, it will heat up... Put this space heater in a larger room, its harder to heat. Because the universe expands, the universe its-self started to "cool off". Then when the universe cooled to approx 10^13 K it was hot enough for the protons to collide and form protons, antiprotons, quarks and antiquarks (quarks make up protons and neutrons). This universe was expanding at the speed of light, and as it expanded this big ball of protons, antiprotons, quarks and anti quarks cooled down. This cooler universe couldnt create anymore quarks or anti quarks, so when a quark collided with an antiquark, boom... no more matter there, all that was left there was radiation. It is theorized (total theory here) that approx one in a billion quarks survived this with no antiquark to annihilate it. These combined to form protons and neutrons. Now that was considered the big bang. Approx 3 minutes after the big bang, scientists think the universe was cooled enough to be cooled down to only a few hundred million degrees. Now the universe was pretty much as hot as a very hot star. In these conditions, protons can be fused into helium (at least we can observe this in a star) and so it is thought that these protons and neutrons were fused into helium. This helium, mixed with the hydrogen already in universe. This explains why all first generation stars have the same proportion of hydrogen to helium in their outer layers. Now what happened is something that is called "recombination" This happened about half a million years after the big bang. This is where the temperature of the universe dropped down to about 3000K and electrons and protons had enough energy to actually form Hydrogen atoms. Now electrons would be attached to nuclei to form the actual hydrogen and helium atoms (before they were just protons.... remember, 1 proton is hydrogen, 2 is helium).

Darn, I've got to go to lunch now... maybe after lunch and after my next class I'll post more on this if people are confused... Any questions or need clarification on anything?

 

[Darkdale]

The Big Bang is a rather silly theory (though not as silly as "God did it" lol). I think that the idea that the universe was created is simply unnecessary and groundless.

 

[Ryan2065]

The Big Bang is a rather silly theory (though not as silly as "God did it" lol). I think that the idea that the universe was created is simply unnecessary and groundless.

The big bang theory is not that "God did the big bang" and is not silly at all. There is evidance for it, the big bang theory might change with the times... but I think the concept will stay around (namely little things will be tweeked about the theory as we learn more things about the universe)

 

[Ryan2065]

I'm doing a speach in my public speaking class on disproving the big bang theory.It is amazing all the evidence against.The funny thing is that I spent about 2 hours looking for evidence to support it, and I could only come up with about 5 or 6 things.But there are tons of peices of evidence disproving the theory.Here is some of the reasons why the big bang theory is crap.
1.It violatest the law of thermodynamics which states "Matter cannot be created or destryed." But the theory states that at one time something called singularity(about the size of a dime)started spinning and started throwing all this matter all over the universe creating planets and stars and things.
2.The theory states that singularity started spinning and throwing stuff out.If this was true,all the planets would be rotating the same way.Venus and Uranus are rotating opposite of all the other ones.
I could go on and on about reasons why it is retarded but I don't have all day.Also,just think about our world for a second.Don't you think it's a little bit odd that all the planets in our solar system are in perfect balance?Don't you see it a little bit odd that humans breath oxygen and put out carbon dioxide,plants breath carbon dioxide and put out oxygen.There are things like this all over the universe.Don't you think it's a little bit weird that everything is so perfect?It sure sounds like it was planned to me!

I guess I can take your points one at a time...
1. The idea that the singularity just started spinning and throwing planets out of it is completely false and whoever told you that should be shot (just in the leg, nothing bad or antyhing :162 When you start looking at how forces act in, say, a black hole, or another place where the atoms are packed in a very dense material, the normal laws that we have do not hold true. This is where quantum mechanics comes into play...
2. Your second part that "falsifys" the big bang theory requires the idea that the singularity just started to throw stuff out... This is not the case, so it is completely false...


Apparently you came up with other things that dis-prove the big bang theory? I'd suggest you first read up on what the big bang theory actually is (because so far your evidence against it is made out of ignorance) and then go about disproving it.

 

[Ryan2065]

http://superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo3.html
This website gives a pretty good intro to the big bang theory... Has a tour of the big bang if you will. =)

And its quite funny that the OP apparently spent 2 hours looking for evidence for the big bang... Yet I spend 10 minutes looking for evidence and came up wtih tons of websites... methinks the OP needs to learn how to use google better.

 

[Darkdale]

The big bang theory is not that "God did the big bang" and is not silly at all. There is evidance for it, the big bang theory might change with the times... but I think the concept will stay around (namely little things will be tweeked about the theory as we learn more things about the universe)

The Big Bang Theory is studying an event. That's it. There is no evidence that it was the first event. None. Might just be the first event we can trace. Most likely it was just a black hole that absorbed too much energy for it's gravitational field and BANG!

 

[Ryan2065]

The Big Bang Theory is studying an event.

And what is so wrong with this?

There is no evidence that it was the first event. None.

Really? Yes... because we all know scientists go about saying things without ANY evidence to back them up... If you say there is no actual PHYSICAL evidence for it, then yes I will agree... But theoritically (and seeing as we cant exactly go back in time to that point) there is a ton of evidence for it. Hense it being the most popular theory, it fits all the observed laws and what not.

Most likely it was just a black hole that absorbed too much energy for it's gravitational field and BANG!

I am not familar with the theory that black holes go bang after they absorb a certain amount of energy... Can you point me in the direction where I might find some materials on that?

 

[Solon]

That's right michael,you sit there and state how wrong I am but you have nothing to back it up.Sounds fishy to me.

The Big Bang theory is now called The Standard Cosmological model, because it is accepted amongst virtually all Cosmologists.

There was nothing before the big bang, and hence the laws of classical pyhsics could not apply. All these laws are emperically proven, and came into existence following the expansion of the universe.

Solon

Solon

 

[Darkdale]

And what is so wrong with this?

Nothing. I think there is evidence that the Big Bang happened... I just don't think it was the first event.

Really? Yes... because we all know scientists go about saying things without ANY evidence to back them up... If you say there is no actual PHYSICAL evidence for it, then yes I will agree... But theoritically (and seeing as we cant exactly go back in time to that point) there is a ton of evidence for it. Hense it being the most popular theory, it fits all the observed laws and what not.

Yes, but they are beginning with the assumption that it was the first event without any real physical or theoretical reason for doing so. The scientific community was looking for a retort to the "God Created the World" theory and the Big Bang was the best they could find, so they are going with that. But the fact of the matter is that matter can neither be created or destroyed... which means, matter was, more likely than not, not created. It's just the stuff that exists.

I am not familar with the theory that black holes go bang after they absorb a certain amount of energy... Can you point me in the direction where I might find some materials on that?

I'll look through some of my books and see what I can find. Basically, the theory goes that black holes have massive gravity fields and they pull all kinds of matter into them. However, eventually, when the amount of matter it pulls in exceeds it's gravitational strength, all of that matter gathered into such a small area, explodes. It makes sense, at least intuitively; and I think it makes more sense, theoretically, to believe that the universe always existed, then to suppose the existence of time called T=0. How in the world did THAT get there? lol I mean, the whole idea that there was some basic stuff in one finite point and nothingness everywhere else, and then all of a sudden this stuff exploded and the universe was created... I'm sorry, I just don't get it. Where did the necessary material come from? What happened before that? Nothing? Nothing happened and then something came from that? How does that make sense?

 

[spacemonkey]

We are all one big science project of the Gelgamecks'. Gosh, I don't know how many times I have to say it. All of the differant Gods are just the differant Gelgameck kids that are in the same study group.

I'm in my right mind because I'm left handed!!!

 

[Solon]

From the Paul Davies web-site:

"
The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.
"

Solon