The Big Bang
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-05-2011, 10:58 AM
 
RE: The Big Bang
(26-05-2011 07:51 AM)captgalectro Wrote:  
(25-05-2011 08:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I would not go as far as to say it is proven but we are learning more about the early stages of the universe. Especially with the large hadron collider.

I would agree with you that the big bang is not proven, but I would disagree that the hadron collider has proven anything about the early stages of the universe. All the collider seems to do is to pound protons together. The more you look into the big bang theory, the more ridiculous it is. All the reasons they give for it do not hold to logical scrutiny.

You seem to know that what the hadron collider is for is to pound protons together.
Any chance you've read up on what this is good for as well?

Citing wikipedia is easy. Let the rest of us who erroneously hope that LHC is the quintessence of scientific progress and knowledge be illuminated by your deep understanding on this matter.

Please, we beg you. Undecided
Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 11:39 AM
RE: The Big Bang
(26-05-2011 09:39 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  What about the big bang theory do you find ridiculous? What are the reasons given that do not hold to logical scrutiny?
I'm all for scrutinizing things, but you gotta back it up.

What I find that makes the big bang not logical is their reasoning:

1. They say nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then they say space expands faster than the speed of light. Otherwise you wouldn't have galaxies further than 13 billion ly's apart. Which you do.
2.The cosmic microwave background radiation points to the big bang because there are not enough stars to account for all those microwaves. Then they say they don't have a clue on how many stars are out there, that the can be wrong up to a factor of 3 (3x as many stars as they think) More, but I'm out of space here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 11:44 AM
RE: The Big Bang
(26-05-2011 07:51 AM)captgalectro Wrote:  All the collider seems to do is to pound protons together. The more you look into the big bang theory, the more ridiculous it is.


I've determined the number 1 reason why people believe in a god: they don't understand science.

This isn't necessarily anything derogatory towards captgalectro, I've just noticed that every single time I debate with a theist, their "science" has been taught to them by other theists who also don't understand it. I.E. Evolution is random chance, the Big Bang created something from nothing, if evolution is true then why aren't dogs giving birth to cats, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to the energy on Earth, etc.

"Ain't got no last words to say, yellow streak right up my spine. The gun in my mouth was real and the taste blew my mind."

"We see you cry. We turn your head. Then we slap your face. We see you try. We see you fail. Some things never change."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 11:48 AM
RE: The Big Bang
(26-05-2011 10:58 AM)Celestus87 Wrote:  
(26-05-2011 07:51 AM)captgalectro Wrote:  
(25-05-2011 08:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I would not go as far as to say it is proven but we are learning more about the early stages of the universe. Especially with the large hadron collider.

I would agree with you that the big bang is not proven, but I would disagree that the hadron collider has proven anything about the early stages of the universe. All the collider seems to do is to pound protons together. The more you look into the big bang theory, the more ridiculous it is. All the reasons they give for it do not hold to logical scrutiny.

You seem to know that what the hadron collider is for is to pound protons together.
Any chance you've read up on what this is good for as well?

Citing wikipedia is easy. Let the rest of us who erroneously hope that LHC is the quintessence of scientific progress and knowledge be illuminated by your deep understanding on this matter.

Please, we beg you. Undecided

What is it good for? Trying to duplicate something that never happened?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 11:56 AM
 
RE: The Big Bang
(26-05-2011 11:39 AM)captgalectro Wrote:  
(26-05-2011 09:39 AM)Stark Raving Wrote:  What about the big bang theory do you find ridiculous? What are the reasons given that do not hold to logical scrutiny?
I'm all for scrutinizing things, but you gotta back it up.

What I find that makes the big bang not logical is their reasoning:

1. They say nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then they say space expands faster than the speed of light. Otherwise you wouldn't have galaxies further than 13 billion ly's apart. Which you do.
2.The cosmic microwave background radiation points to the big bang because there are not enough stars to account for all those microwaves. Then they say they don't have a clue on how many stars are out there, that the can be wrong up to a factor of 3 (3x as many stars as they think) More, but I'm out of space here.

How Large is the Universe
(26-05-2011 11:48 AM)captgalectro Wrote:  
(26-05-2011 10:58 AM)Celestus87 Wrote:  
(26-05-2011 07:51 AM)captgalectro Wrote:  
(25-05-2011 08:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I would not go as far as to say it is proven but we are learning more about the early stages of the universe. Especially with the large hadron collider.

I would agree with you that the big bang is not proven, but I would disagree that the hadron collider has proven anything about the early stages of the universe. All the collider seems to do is to pound protons together. The more you look into the big bang theory, the more ridiculous it is. All the reasons they give for it do not hold to logical scrutiny.

You seem to know that what the hadron collider is for is to pound protons together.
Any chance you've read up on what this is good for as well?

Citing wikipedia is easy. Let the rest of us who erroneously hope that LHC is the quintessence of scientific progress and knowledge be illuminated by your deep understanding on this matter.

Please, we beg you. Undecided

What is it good for? Trying to duplicate something that never happened?

Thanks for failing. Made me giggle. Tongue
Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 11:57 AM
RE: The Big Bang
Quote:1. They say nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then they say space expands faster than the speed of light. Otherwise you wouldn't have galaxies further than 13 billion ly's apart. Which you do.

Actually there is a difference. Objects cannot travel with/faster than 299792,456 km/s in space. This is fact, it has been proven on multiple occasions.
But the concept is in The BB is that it was space itself that expanded. So not only had the object a certain speed in space, but space itself expanded as well, so basically if we looked from an absolute inertia system it would look like as if the objects had a relative speed more than "c".

p.s. Actually it's not true that stuff cannot go faster than C. It is only that stuff cannot accelerate to a speed faster than c. Actually if something would travel faster than the speed of light, it couldn't get below it. (not that it has anything to do with the matter, it's just cool)

Quote:2.The cosmic microwave background radiation points to the big bang because there are not enough stars to account for all those microwaves. Then they say they don't have a clue on how many stars are out there, that the can be wrong up to a factor of 3 (3x as many stars as they think) More, but I'm out of space here.

The CBR (cosmic background radiation) cannot come from starts: It is too "cool", and it is too homogeneous in every direction.

..."we can be truly free - not because we can rebel against the the tyranny of the selfish replicators but because we know that there is no one to rebel."
Susan Blackmore : The Meme Machine
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 01:14 PM
RE: The Big Bang
(26-05-2011 11:44 AM)Buddy Christ Wrote:  
(26-05-2011 07:51 AM)captgalectro Wrote:  All the collider seems to do is to pound protons together. The more you look into the big bang theory, the more ridiculous it is.


I've determined the number 1 reason why people believe in a god: they don't understand science.

This isn't necessarily anything derogatory towards captgalectro, I've just noticed that every single time I debate with a theist, their "science" has been taught to them by other theists who also don't understand it. I.E. Evolution is random chance, the Big Bang created something from nothing, if evolution is true then why aren't dogs giving birth to cats, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics applies to the energy on Earth, etc.

The #1and #2 reason that people believe in god is 1. They're scared. 2. stupid
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-05-2011, 01:26 PM
 
RE: The Big Bang
(26-05-2011 11:39 AM)captgalectro Wrote:  What I find that makes the big bang not logical is their reasoning:

1. They say nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, then they say space expands faster than the speed of light. Otherwise you wouldn't have galaxies further than 13 billion ly's apart. Which you do.
2.The cosmic microwave background radiation points to the big bang because there are not enough stars to account for all those microwaves. Then they say they don't have a clue on how many stars are out there, that the can be wrong up to a factor of 3 (3x as many stars as they think) More, but I'm out of space here.
Just like Bronze Age nomads would find technology today ridiculous, it's only natural to find something like the big bang or quantum physics ridiculous when you don't understand it.
Books like this will not answer your every question if you truly want to understand it.

As to your two points;

1: expansion does not mean travel through space. The very fabric of space is getting larger (you can think of it as a coordinate system where new coordinates are constantly added). The distance between two galaxies can grow faster than light can travel, even while the galaxies are "standing still" if the distance between them is big enough. The size of the universe is thought to be as big as it is because of an inflation of this expansion at one point (you can look up inflation theory).

2: The CMB has nothing to do with stars i'm afraid. Before it was discovered, those who theorized a big bang actually predicted that such a background radiation would be there. This is simply because (given a big bang) at one point, the density of the universe would have to be so high that the matter would be ionized and opaque. In an opaque universe light cannot travel very far. When the universe cooled down the light could finally spread out. This light then spread out from everywhere and has since been red shifted by a factor of a thousand, down to the wavelength of microwaves. Decades before it was discovered, it was predicted to be just that, if the big bang took place.

Sure enough, some of the aspects of the big bang you can say is just a theory (like inflation), but there are observed facts, like the CMB that cannot be denied (and of course the implications that must follow given the laws of physics we also have observed to be a fact).
Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2011, 10:26 AM
RE: The Big Bang
You know who first came up with the Big Bang theory?

The guy next to Einstein:

[Image: Lemaitre&Einstein.jpg]


Georges LemaƮtre, a Belgian catholic priest first came up with the theory. The vatican didn't even disagree with him on all points. Using the argument that the big bang is an invention of evil atheists can thus be classified as pure bullshit.

"Infinitus est numerus stultorum." (The number of fools is infinite)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2011, 01:50 PM
 
RE: The Big Bang
Heres my piece on the BBT:

Its the same as Creationist thinking.

Yes, I went there. Many of the scientific community firmly believe (know) that this is what happened, just as the creationists believe that some invisible Sky Daddy appeared out of nowhere, and just happened to have made everything. Look, I'm not as intelligent as one one the scientists, nor do I claim as such. For all I know, the BBT is factual, but the way people are arguing it these days does make me wonder.

The way everyone is portraying it is the same way creationists are portraying their own theories, with fanaticism. I've already had to defend myself on all sides during a youtube vid, and I'll most likely do it here. Just bare in mind, the way your portraying the theory is pretty much the same as a creationist is with theirs.

My evidence towards this development? Simple.
Scientist: "This is what happened. This is what happened. This is what happened."
Creationist: "This is what happened. This is what happened. This is what happened."

See the pattern yet? And when I call on both, I get bombarded with "Oh your not an atheist, your a creationist" when I call on an atheist who firmly believes in the BBT. I hear a lot more colorful language from the creationist side, though, which always makes me laugh.

The Big Bang Theory is starting to look more like a religion, people, which is making me question it like the good little atheist that I am. Its best to stop repeating old theories, and actually finding out for ourselves. We do NOT know what happened, but we can guess at it. If you claim that the BBT is factual, your going to get laughed at. Why? Because the word "THEORY" is stuck right in it. If it was factual, then the word would not be in there, correct?
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: