Thread: Big Bang Evidence-- Greatest Discovery Of All Time

Hey, good find, man. Though, I should say that I DON'T believe in the Big Bang, or at least, not in the way that most people thing about it. Maybe in a few days after I've gotten this essay done I could make a thread in here with some crappy home-made diagrams of MY view of Big Bang Theory. Would you be interested, Universal? Cos, if so, I'd be happy to start a discussion.

Originally Posted by The

Hey, good find, man. Though, I should say that I DON'T believe in the Big Bang, or at least, not in the way that most people thing about it. Maybe in a few days after I've gotten this essay done I could make a thread in here with some crappy home-made diagrams of MY view of Big Bang Theory. Would you be interested, Universal? Cos, if so, I'd be happy to start a discussion.
[/b]

I'm a bit curias, Blue. How do you think the universe came into being?

Originally Posted by Keeper

I'm a bit curias, Blue. How do you think the universe came into being?
[/b]

Like I said. If Universal Mind is interested, after I've finished this last essay on thursday I'll post a thread over the weekend.

Originally Posted by The

Like I said. If Universal Mind is interested, after I've finished this last essay on thursday I'll post a thread over the weekend.
[/b]

cool looking forward to it.

Hey I would like to see that essay TBM.

I think the big bang theory is still very... theoretical. The version I accept for now is that the universe keeps re-baning, by espansion and retraction to that one tiny point that sparks the bang.

Since all the matter in the universe has potentional energy, becouse everything is attracked to each other by gravity, eventually everything should end up at one point, right? And since there is no 'drag' or how you call the lack of resistance that makes something fly endlessly with the same speed in space, anyhow, yeah.

Seems logic to me.

Originally Posted by Neruo

The version I accept for now is that the universe keeps re-baning, by espansion and retraction to that one tiny point that sparks the bang.

Since all the matter in the universe has potentional energy, becouse everything is attracked to each other by gravity, eventually everything should end up at one point, right? And since there is no 'drag' or how you call the lack of resistance that makes something fly endlessly with the same speed in space, anyhow, yeah.[/b]

Ah, the age old question, will the world end in fire or ice?

Common sense would tend to support that theory, but common sense if often not adequate when dealing in cosmology. The current problem with the "bang, compress, bang, compress" model is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The basic theory here is that the dark matter and dark energy which makes up most of the universe creates an anti-gravitational effect and pushes large bodies of matter apart from each other. If this is the case, the universe will not collapse back onto itself but continue to expand...forever.

Great article, Universal.

Neruo, I think you mean the Big Bang/Big Cruch theory.

By the way, why is this in Religion/Spirituality?

Originally Posted by Keeper

Neruo, I think you mean the Big Bang/Big Cruch theory.

By the way, why is this in Religion/Spirituality?
[/b]

Yeah that theory. And this is in Religion/Spirituality because if you accept the theory of the big band (and related theories) as the most likely, then you also accept the theory of evolution (ignoring the silly Intelligent Design) and you kind of accept that the earth isn't the number one place in the universe, something that christians seem to have a hard time explaining.

I mean MAN, aliens would rape the pope, not really, but Christianity as a whole and just about all religions. There isn't anything in the bible about other worlds and about aliens.

actually, Big bang would sapport Christianinty.

first, religiosly, it is writen that God said: "Let there be light". Now, we have two parts here: God said (Voice of God) and Light (...light). Now, voice: noise, and light: light equil explosion (sometimes).

So God said let there be light, and then an explosion happend. (writen badly, but you see what I mean)

next, scientificly, where did the endergy to "Big Bang" come from? We know matter is a form of energy, and acording to entropy we are loosing energy, so where did the first energy come from? One answer (only one I am currently awere of) is that the energy came from an outside source. i.e. God

you see where I'm going?

[edit] oh, and I'm not sure about in the Bible, but the Qu'ran says that Allah is the lord of all the worlds, implying many planets and lives

but then there is one thing: where did God come from?

i'd like THAT question answered...

He has always existed. If He made time (wich He claimes) then He has no begining, and no end.

Hence, Alpha and Omega.

I'm a bit curias, Blue. How do you think the universe came into being?
[/b]

The big bang dind't "bang" in the universe, it made the universe itself.

He has always existed. If He made time (wich He claimes) then He has no begining, and no end.
Hence, Alpha and Omega.
[/b]

So, how is that different from the claim the the universe has always been there. Really, I think god is just applying human features to nature.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

The big bang dind't "bang" in the universe, it made the universe itself.

So, how is that different from the claim the the universe has always been there. Really, I think god is just applying human features to nature.
[/b]

actually, I highly doubt that.

Even if I didn't beleive, the Steady state theory is almost universaly rejected, mainly (as far as I can tell) because of entropy and the fact the galaxys are moving away from each other in the manner of a balloon being blown up (picture the galaxies as little stars stuck to a balloon that is being filled with air.) This seems to say that the universe is still expanding in a way consistent with the Big Bang.

but it could be something else, I dont know.

actually, I highly doubt that.

Even if I didn't beleive, the Steady state theory is almost universaly rejected, mainly (as far as I can tell) because of entropy and the fact the galaxys are moving away from each other in the manner of a balloon being blown up (picture the galaxies as little stars stuck to a balloon that is being filled with air.) This seems to say that the universe is still expanding in a way consistent with the Big Bang.

but it could be something else, I dont know. [/b]

well your wrong it not universaly rejected their are many theortical physician who still work with steady state theory and still lots of evidence to support theory if you type up thing wrong with bigbang then they will come up and plus their is lots of paradox and thing that make the model look impossible e.g. lamda paradox if the universe didnt have 99.99999 goes on for twenty pages the universe would look like this. the main argument you posed their was anwser by the smartest person who has ever lived william he even predict dark matter 80 years before it was discovered you can read the book free here http://www.sidis.net/ANIMContents.htm if you believe in bigbang please read it.

When it comes to the big bang, I think its just as likely as any of Plato's views on the soul. They make some sense, but chances of them being real seem stupidly small

Originally Posted by becomingagodo

well your wrong it not universaly rejected their are many theortical physician who still work with steady state theory and still lots of evidence to support theory if you type up thing wrong with bigbang then they will come up and plus their is lots of paradox and thing that make the model look impossible e.g. lamda paradox if the universe didnt have 99.99999 goes on for twenty pages the universe would look like this. the main argument you posed their was anwser by the smartest person who has ever lived william he even predict dark matter 80 years before it was discovered you can read the book free here http://www.sidis.net/ANIMContents.htm if you believe in bigbang please read it.
[/b]

okay, first off, I said almost, and second, smart is a relitive term. You cant just say someone is the smartist person who ever lived, because he may have been a maths wizz, but what about Bio, phylosophy, religion, art, etc.

and thanks for the link, i'll check it out.

Originally Posted by Keeper

actually, Big bang would sapport Christianinty.[/b]

Not really. Not literally, anyways, and from what you've posted, you DO take the Bible literally, don't you Keeper? Because if you take the Bible literally, the Universe was created 6,000 years ago. The Big Bang happened BILLIONS of years ago.

Originally Posted by Keeper

first, religiosly, it is writen that God said: "Let there be light". Now, we have two parts here: God said (Voice of God) and Light (...light). Now, voice: noise, and light: light equil explosion (sometimes).[/b]

This is such a ridiculously unlikely meaning for the verse. A few flaws:
One-How would the writers of the Bible know about the Big Bang? Yes, gawd could tell them, but it's far more likely that they meant it literally--that they thought gawd really did, literally, say "Let there be light!" and there was. That tends to be the theme in creation myths.
Two-The Big Bang wasn't a literal explosion--they use that term because it was a rapid expansion, NOT because it was literally an explosion.
Three-There would be no sound involved in the Big Bang--there wasn't a consistent atmosphere or material to conduct the waves.

Originally Posted by Keeper

next, scientificly, where did the endergy to "Big Bang" come from? We know matter is a form of energy, and acording to entropy we are loosing energy, so where did the first energy come from? One answer (only one I am currently awere of) is that the energy came from an outside source. i.e. God[/b]

No. Just, no.
For one, matter can be converted directly to energy. Nuclear weapons, anybody? The energy released from an atomic bomb comes from the destruction of a very small amount of matter.
Not to mention antimatter-matter reactions--both would release plenty of energy.

Originally Posted by Keeper

[edit] oh, and I'm not sure about in the Bible, but the Qu'ran says that Allah is the lord of all the worlds, implying many planets and lives[/b]

And? Do you believe in the Qu'ran? What's your point?

Originally Posted by Tsen

Not really. Not literally, anyways, and from what you've posted, you DO take the Bible literally, don't you Keeper? Because if you take the Bible literally, the Universe was created 6,000 years ago. The Big Bang happened BILLIONS of years ago.
[/b]

Two thinks: One, Creaton deals with earths age, not the universe, and second, its not conclusive that it happend so long ago

This is such a ridiculously unlikely meaning for the verse. A few flaws:
One-How would the writers of the Bible know about the Big Bang? Yes, gawd could tell them, but it's far more likely that they meant it literally--that they thought gawd really did, literally, say "Let there be light!" and there was. That tends to be the theme in creation myths.[/b]

and it didn't have any physical manifestations?

Two-The Big Bang wasn't a literal explosion--they use that term because it was a rapid expansion, NOT because it was literally an explosion. [/b]

I know, but it was the sudden creation of space-time and energy, wich became matter. that sudden reales could be discribed as a explosion, and all shockwaves are a for of sound

Three-There would be no sound involved in the Big Bang--there wasn't a consistent atmosphere or material to conduct the waves. [/b]

energy. besides, God's voice wouldn't nessesseraly be a 'sound' that we can here, but more of a wve that I emtnioned, and space-time expanding, and a flow of energy are a type of wave.

No. Just, no.
For one, matter can be converted directly to energy. Nuclear weapons, anybody? The energy released from an atomic bomb comes from the destruction of a very small amount of matter. [/b]

and a lot of energy makes matter, and if you beleive the Big bang, there was a super massive amound.

Not to mention antimatter-matter reactions--both would release plenty of energy. [/b]

I read somewhere that, in theory, first it was virtual particals (both matter thand antimatter, like around a mirco black hole) what receved enough energy to become real.

And? Do you believe in the Qu'ran? What's your point?
[/b]

The point was that some religions do talk about other worlds, as was the question.

Two thinks: One, Creaton deals with earths age, not the universe, and second, its not conclusive that it happend so long ago[/b]

No, because according to your Biblical creation account, there was NOTHING until gawd's 6 days of creation. No Universe, nothing.
And YES, it IS conclusive that it happened so long ago. We are VERY sure of the time of the Big Bang, most of the question is why and how it came to happen. The 'when' has already been answered; 13.7 billion years, +/- 2%.

I know, but it was the sudden creation of space-time and energy, wich became matter. that sudden reales could be discribed as a explosion, and all shockwaves are a for of sound[/b]

You didn't read my post very closely. There needs to be matter present in a significant density to conduct sound, which is the same thing as a pressure wave. Within a few trillionths of a second, the matter from the big bang was already too far apart to conduct any sound, and during the few trillionths of a second when matter WAS close enough to conduct sound, it was most likely in the form of a quark-gluon plasma and incapable of conducting said sound waves.

and a lot of energy makes matter, and if you beleive the Big bang, there was a super massive amound.[/b]

Not necessarily. The matter didn't have to be created from energy--that's a non sequitur. Energy can create matter, but not all matter was created from energy.

Originally Posted by Tsen

No, because according to your Biblical creation account, there was NOTHING until gawd's 6 days of creation. No Universe, nothing. [/b]

"in the beginning God created the Heavens and the earth" END OF VERSE. "The earth was shapless and void" So God created the universe and the earth. It doesn't specify how long it took for Him to do that.

And YES, it IS conclusive that it happened so long ago. We are VERY sure of the time of the Big Bang, most of the question is why and how it came to happen. The 'when' has already been answered; 13.7 billion years, +/- 2%.
[/b]

I will take your word for it, though I will reserch this matter as well.

You didn't read my post very closely. There needs to be matter present in a significant density to conduct sound, which is the same thing as a pressure wave. Within a few trillionths of a second, the matter from the big bang was already too far apart to conduct any sound, and during the few trillionths of a second when matter WAS close enough to conduct sound, it was most likely in the form of a quark-gluon plasma and incapable of conducting said sound waves.[/b]

I'm affraid you didn't read my post very closly either. I mentoned it didn't have to be a "sound" as we understand it, but a wave. One wich can still be heard.

Not necessarily. The matter didn't have to be created from energy--that's a non sequitur. Energy can create matter, but not all matter was created from energy.
[/b]

I'm not sure I follow you. Anyway, I'm just telling you the theory I heard, and it has been shown that matter is a form of energy.

Originally Posted by Tsen

And YES, it IS conclusive that it happened so long ago. We are VERY sure of the time of the Big Bang, most of the question is why and how it came to happen. The 'when' has already been answered; 13.7 billion years, +/- 2%.[/b]

Well, actually Tsen, I sort of have my own theory about the big bang and time. I'll post a thread about it over the weekend, bt the guts of it is that from our point in the time-space continuum, the big bang looks like it happened 13.7 billion years ago, but from another point it might look like the big bang never happened, but that there will be a big crunch om 2.4 billion years, while from yet another (far more specific) point, it would appear that neither the big bang nor big crunch did ever or will ever happen, and that the universe is of constant size.

It's only MY theory, but I think it's a fairly good one. I'll explain it over the weekend though, if anyone's interested.

I'd be interested to hear it, TBM.

I'm affraid you didn't read my post very closly either. I mentoned it didn't have to be a "sound" as we understand it, but a wave. One wich can still be heard.[/b]

Keeper, you really are dense.

I ALREADY ANSWERED WHY THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE. YES, I understand that sound is just a wave. What YOU don't grasp is that within a few trillionths of a second after the Big Bang, all the matter would be too far apart to carry ANY wave, whether above or below the human hearing threshold. Compression waves require a medium to carry them, and that medium was NOT present.

Originally Posted by Tsen

I'd be interested to hear it, TBM.
Keeper, you really are dense.

I ALREADY ANSWERED WHY THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE. YES, I understand that sound is just a wave. What YOU don't grasp is that within a few trillionths of a second after the Big Bang, all the matter would be too far apart to carry ANY wave, whether above or below the human hearing threshold. Compression waves require a medium to carry them, and that medium was NOT present.
[/b]

... I REALLY dont think you are getting me. THe fact that they where moving means they were on the waze. THe EXPANSION is the wave I mean. And energy can also be a medium: i.e. light, as photons are energy particals, and not strictly light

No, the expansion is NOT a wave. Space itself was expanding, not matter, and regardless, it STILL would not create a sound, whether in the human hearing threshold or no.
And it's all a rather pointless debate, anyways, because your interpretation of that verse is so nonsensical that it really isn't worth discussing.