Actually, the early universe was more dense than it is now, and could transmit sound waves. There is space within the water in the ocean, too.
Big Bang Theory -Foolish-
- Thread starter darlas
- Start date
Well Darlas, I have met many people like you who have no facts or evidence or truth in anything they are trying to convey or prove. So, see you can not disprove the fundamentals of science, because they have been tested over and over again.
Good Luck
Good Luck
Woody: The Big Bang Theory is completely and utterly false.
The dictionary defines a bang as:
A sudden loud noise, as of an explosion.
A sudden loud blow or bump.
Sound doesn't travel in space. So the Big Bang theory is an oxymoron to start with.
*************
M*W: Woody, I think you are starting to smell of rotten Royal Dutch Elm disease.
The BB theory is still in the process of occuring. That's why you can't see it. Stephen Hawkings agrees with the BB theory, and sound does travel in space. Like anything else in the universe, it produces a rippling effect.
*************
Woody: And we have the theories about antimatter, and all. Antimatter is for real, but the precept of a reverse time parallel universe is about as much a stretch of faith as anyone can imagine.
Oh yeah, I'm sure I'll catch bullets on this one. But tell me if antimatter was so great, why isn't someone doing something great with it. NASA sure has been trying:
http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/Papers/NASA_anti.pdf
If there was a free lunch we would probably be eating it by now. I haven't heard an all-encompassing energy theory that takes antimatter into account, but when it gets done, I am certain the conservation of energy will remain valid, and that it took a supernatural metaphysical event to start things off.
Somebody needs to cut to the chase and line up the energy theories without all this hype about a mirror universe that nobody can prove.
*************
M*W: There will come a day when it can be proven. Antimatter research is being done in biomedical science. We've already sent stem cells into space with NASA to see what effect space would have on them. We already know that space travel causes muscle wasting in animals and humans.
You need to do a lot more scientific reading. The bible was written in the day it was written, and nothing in it today is accurate or still applicable.
I had a conversation yesterday with a christian friend of mine. He agreed on the BB and theory of evolution, but he still believes that god started our creation. Therefore, if a god existed that could have started the BB, it probably was caused by a hot gas -- like from the sun -- oh, yeah, the sun was the first monotheist god to humankind. You people just gave the sun of god a human name, but it still didn't do jack shit for ya.
The dictionary defines a bang as:
A sudden loud noise, as of an explosion.
A sudden loud blow or bump.
Sound doesn't travel in space. So the Big Bang theory is an oxymoron to start with.
*************
M*W: Woody, I think you are starting to smell of rotten Royal Dutch Elm disease.
The BB theory is still in the process of occuring. That's why you can't see it. Stephen Hawkings agrees with the BB theory, and sound does travel in space. Like anything else in the universe, it produces a rippling effect.
*************
Woody: And we have the theories about antimatter, and all. Antimatter is for real, but the precept of a reverse time parallel universe is about as much a stretch of faith as anyone can imagine.
Oh yeah, I'm sure I'll catch bullets on this one. But tell me if antimatter was so great, why isn't someone doing something great with it. NASA sure has been trying:
http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/Papers/NASA_anti.pdf
If there was a free lunch we would probably be eating it by now. I haven't heard an all-encompassing energy theory that takes antimatter into account, but when it gets done, I am certain the conservation of energy will remain valid, and that it took a supernatural metaphysical event to start things off.
Somebody needs to cut to the chase and line up the energy theories without all this hype about a mirror universe that nobody can prove.
*************
M*W: There will come a day when it can be proven. Antimatter research is being done in biomedical science. We've already sent stem cells into space with NASA to see what effect space would have on them. We already know that space travel causes muscle wasting in animals and humans.
You need to do a lot more scientific reading. The bible was written in the day it was written, and nothing in it today is accurate or still applicable.
I had a conversation yesterday with a christian friend of mine. He agreed on the BB and theory of evolution, but he still believes that god started our creation. Therefore, if a god existed that could have started the BB, it probably was caused by a hot gas -- like from the sun -- oh, yeah, the sun was the first monotheist god to humankind. You people just gave the sun of god a human name, but it still didn't do jack shit for ya.
its all pretty much guess work and a lot of it vanity. darwins theory follow some logic at least to a point. the bibliical idea of creation with the adam and eve thing... in my opinion was never meant to taken literally. to me it laughable. but more than that, im not sure that spending any but the smallest amount time devoted to trying validate speculation on a subject whos answers are unknown and quite likely unknowable, is wise considering that in the end, our lives are very short indeed and time truely isnt something we have to spare daydreaming. but to each their owns. in any case, ill usually take logic coupled with some physical evidence over farfetched faith based fantasy on whatever subject.
MW says,
Light travels in a vacuum but sound does not. That's only a minor point anyway -- nothing to quibble about on my part.
I was reading some of Justin Martyr's writings, and the philosophers in his day were having the same discussion we're having now. Could the universe's existence be explained by the natural or the supernatural? The arguments sound strangely the same after nearly 2000 years. With all the new facts we're still debating the same stuff.
The hard core viewon the parallel universe theory says we really don't exist at all, because every action in our universe has an equal and opposite reaction in reverse time in the parallel universe for net zero cancellation. This agrees with the nihilist's point of view (where we think we exist but we really don't), and it gets crazier from there. So the new religions and philosophies keep on re-incarnating into the same old ideas.
Light travels in a vacuum but sound does not. That's only a minor point anyway -- nothing to quibble about on my part.
I was reading some of Justin Martyr's writings, and the philosophers in his day were having the same discussion we're having now. Could the universe's existence be explained by the natural or the supernatural? The arguments sound strangely the same after nearly 2000 years. With all the new facts we're still debating the same stuff.
The hard core viewon the parallel universe theory says we really don't exist at all, because every action in our universe has an equal and opposite reaction in reverse time in the parallel universe for net zero cancellation. This agrees with the nihilist's point of view (where we think we exist but we really don't), and it gets crazier from there. So the new religions and philosophies keep on re-incarnating into the same old ideas.
Last edited:
I think investigation will always reveal news depths to the universe, and new mysteries. Therefore, a naturalistic explanation will always seem incomplete, leaving philosophical room for the supernatural, like an intellectual shortcut. The supernatural would seem natural, too, if we only understood it. So, the supernatural depends on a certain degree of ignorance. But, then again, there might be limits on knowledge. All evidence of the universe before the Big Bang would have been destroyed in it. Perhaps there will always be room for a supernatural explanation of events, but it seems to be intellectually dishonest. Its like admitting you will never find out about that subject. I think it shows a lack of faith in humanity.
Nobody can prove your supernatural metaphysical event, either. But the rational view in the absence of any truly verifiable supernatural metaphysical events in our experience is that the Universe is also the result of a natural event and to try and investigate and explain that. Given the law of conservation of energy, it's rational to postulate a hypothetical "anti-Universe" even if we are nowhere near proving it. It is not rational to stop at the level of evidence we have now and then simply "chuck in the towel" and go for the God theory.Woody said:
Nobody's asking you to follow down that path if you've no inclination to do so. But science is asked "do you have a rational, logical, non-supernatural explanation for the creation of the Universe", and science does - based upon known physical effects such as virtual pair appearance/annihilation, zero point energy or quantum fluctuation. That does not mean that it is the correct explanation, in fact it probably isn't the correct explanation. However, it is the best explanation that science can provide.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, science was done in order to investigate the Laws of the Universe without any real conception that there might not be a God responsible for it. As geology and palaeontology showed the evidence, it was clear that creatures evolved from earlier creatures. Potentially the physical evidence of God's handiwork in everyday life! Then along came Charles Darwin, advancing in 1859 the Origin of Species in which he demonstrated how evolution was driven by blind, natural forces - Natural Selection. Then in 1871 he published Descent of Man in which he extended the idea to Humanity itself - that we were no less evolved from earlier creatures than any other.
Atheism had been around for some considerable time, of course - but until there was a theory to explain the complexity of life, and to demonstrate that there need not be anything special or particular about humanity, it could not really claim intellectual rigour. All that changed - if humanity wasn't special, maybe there wasn't even a God.
It was against this background that cosmology first got started in the early years of the 20th Century. Since there was no God, need there be a Creation at all? And so the Steady State theory was born, which postulated that everything in the Universe had popped into existence, one proton at a time - throughout all eternity. Plausible, sensible (apart from the use of a real "eternity") - but sadly not matched by the evidence. But the concept of matter coming into existence out of energy, in equal proportions, matter and anti-matter could certainly be extended to the now accepted Single Event Universe creation.
Woody, maybe God created the Universe, but if he did, he created another one at the same time - I don't believe God would break the laws of physics he set up!
I don't get you on this - you ask why nothing's happening with antimatter, and then cite the paper that pretty well explains why doing anything with antimatter (like making enough to do something with) is really difficult! This isn't the first time here at sciforums I've seen someone cite something as a question mark, when the answer is actually in the reference itself!Woody said:
Woody: I was reading some of Justin Martyr's writings, and the philosophers in his day were having the same discussion we're having now. Could the universe's existence be explained by the natural or the supernatural? The arguments sound strangely the same after nearly 2000 years. With all the new facts we're still debating the same stuff.
*************
M*W: The debates go on because, for the past 2000 years, some people chose to remain ignorant in their own little world view, and the rest of us chose to exercise our minds and learn something new.
*************
Woody: The hard core viewon the parallel universe theory says we really don't exist at all, because every action in our universe has an equal and opposite reaction in reverse time in the parallel universe for net zero cancellation. This agrees with the nihilist's point of view (where we think we exist but we really don't), and it gets crazier from there. So the new religions and philosophies keep on re-incarnating into the same old ideas.
*************
M*W: The "parallel universe" I have read about is something different than what you describe. The PU I'm talking about most definitely allows for everything in our world to exist. The "equal and opposite reaction in reverse time" occurs with the expanding and contracting of the universe. Stephen Hawking says, "The thermodynamic and psychological arrows of time would NOT reverse when the universe begins to recontract or inside black holes." My understanding of a PU occurs right in our midst, but we can't sense it necessarily. It's a different dimension that the one we're in. The existence of life in the PU, however, is not necessarily a mirror image of our life in this dimension. It's a separate reality. I've always wondered why that reality is able to crossover to this reality, but we're not sufficiently able to crossover to that one, and Stephen Hawking says it's because of "gravitational pull." I'm not saying that when the parallel reality slips through the time-space continuum that we can see and readily describe what we see. Our eyes are not interdimensional or evolved enough to have this asset. However, there may be some more highly evolved individuals who can perceive their presence, but I am not one of them.
*************
M*W: The debates go on because, for the past 2000 years, some people chose to remain ignorant in their own little world view, and the rest of us chose to exercise our minds and learn something new.
*************
Woody: The hard core viewon the parallel universe theory says we really don't exist at all, because every action in our universe has an equal and opposite reaction in reverse time in the parallel universe for net zero cancellation. This agrees with the nihilist's point of view (where we think we exist but we really don't), and it gets crazier from there. So the new religions and philosophies keep on re-incarnating into the same old ideas.
*************
M*W: The "parallel universe" I have read about is something different than what you describe. The PU I'm talking about most definitely allows for everything in our world to exist. The "equal and opposite reaction in reverse time" occurs with the expanding and contracting of the universe. Stephen Hawking says, "The thermodynamic and psychological arrows of time would NOT reverse when the universe begins to recontract or inside black holes." My understanding of a PU occurs right in our midst, but we can't sense it necessarily. It's a different dimension that the one we're in. The existence of life in the PU, however, is not necessarily a mirror image of our life in this dimension. It's a separate reality. I've always wondered why that reality is able to crossover to this reality, but we're not sufficiently able to crossover to that one, and Stephen Hawking says it's because of "gravitational pull." I'm not saying that when the parallel reality slips through the time-space continuum that we can see and readily describe what we see. Our eyes are not interdimensional or evolved enough to have this asset. However, there may be some more highly evolved individuals who can perceive their presence, but I am not one of them.
Well, we can't create a fusion reaction either but the thoughtless sun seems to manage quite well at the rate of about 4 billion kilogrammes per second.Woody said:Silas,
The paper explains how inefficiently man makes and uses antimatter. On the otherhand a thoughtless universe has it all figured out.
Creating antimatter is easy - it happens trillions of times every second. keeping it away from matter is what is difficult. There isn't the remotest analogue between the problems of physicists in isolating a infinitesimal amount of anti-matter and some pre-spacetime concentration of some energy equivalent out of which was born all the matter in our Unverse.
Silas said,
Is that when you consider the whole universe?
Or if you are thinking in parallel universe theory, antimatter "unhappens" trillions of times a second, and time is going in reverse for a perfect cancellation with real time, hence time doesn't really exist -- it is just a mirror image of a cancellation process.
Creating antimatter is easy you say, but look at the investment it takes. Doing useful work with antimatter is the hard part.
Is that when you consider the whole universe?
Or if you are thinking in parallel universe theory, antimatter "unhappens" trillions of times a second, and time is going in reverse for a perfect cancellation with real time, hence time doesn't really exist -- it is just a mirror image of a cancellation process.
Creating antimatter is easy you say, but look at the investment it takes. Doing useful work with antimatter is the hard part.
Who the hell is so sure anyways? It's like two people arguing over something that have no or very little clue about in the first place.
Lets all just PARTY and enjoy this little existance we have. Go into nature, and smell the beauty of freedom and clean air. Then go into the city and play with the beautiful electronics and ENJOY LIFE! Quit arguing over something we don't know!
(Then again... if we dont argue over it, we wouldn't get anywhere would we?) (Or would we?...)
:m:
Lets all just PARTY and enjoy this little existance we have. Go into nature, and smell the beauty of freedom and clean air. Then go into the city and play with the beautiful electronics and ENJOY LIFE! Quit arguing over something we don't know!
(Then again... if we dont argue over it, we wouldn't get anywhere would we?) (Or would we?...)
:m:caffiene fubar said,
Precisely.
It is a matter of faith. Either you believe the universe was created or you believe it just happened. Either case the explanation is becoming metaphysical. It's a matter of what a person believes, the same as it was 2,000 years ago, 4,000 years ago or however far back you want to go. Should we expect the future to be any different?
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.
Precisely.
It is a matter of faith. Either you believe the universe was created or you believe it just happened. Either case the explanation is becoming metaphysical. It's a matter of what a person believes, the same as it was 2,000 years ago, 4,000 years ago or however far back you want to go. Should we expect the future to be any different?
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.
suzukisfrog
Registered Senior Member
well the galaxies are all moving away from each other so i presume they were at the least all banging each other earlier. oh Timothy, stay dumb, dummy. it's simpler to believe jesus is gonna come back & save your sorry ass that way.
Woody,
No. One may simply admit they do not know. In the absence of evidence there is no requirement to make a choice.
No, that is also incorrect; some speculations are just more fantastic than others.
No it isn’t, it is a matter of what can be shown to be true. Belief without facts are simply fantasies.
No. One may simply admit they do not know. In the absence of evidence there is no requirement to make a choice.
No, that is also incorrect; some speculations are just more fantastic than others.
No it isn’t, it is a matter of what can be shown to be true. Belief without facts are simply fantasies.
Muhlenberg
Registered Senior Member
§outh§tar . . .Darwin had nothing to do with the Big Bang theory. I will venture to say, from what I have read, neither did Einstein although his work may have been instrumental.
Might have been. But Einstein, at first, said the father of the Big Bang theory--Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian astrophysicist and Catholic priest--was wrong and had no grasp of physics.
Einstein did recant within a few years and described Lemaitre's theory as "beautiful."
Might have been. But Einstein, at first, said the father of the Big Bang theory--Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian astrophysicist and Catholic priest--was wrong and had no grasp of physics.
Einstein did recant within a few years and described Lemaitre's theory as "beautiful."
Muhlenberg said:
I can't remember exactly, it's been a while, but didn't Einstein invent some sort of universal constant to make his theory work at the time? I think he also called his error the most foolish blunder of his career.
I think his work might have influenced Guth's inflationary model though. It's been so long since I actually read up on this so correct me if I'm wrong.
Like I said - if we must choose then what Occam demonstrated was that statistically the simplest idea usually tends to be the most accurate.
But if truth is expected then proofs will be needed and not speculations no matter how credible they might seem.
But if truth is expected then proofs will be needed and not speculations no matter how credible they might seem.