The Infinite Universe vs the Myth of the Big Bang
- Thread starter EndLightEnd
- Start date
No it doesn't.
On the contrary, there are several plausible mechanisms. Google Victor Stenger.
Having 'journal' in a URL doesn't make it a journal, reputable or otherwise.
Possibly through grants, perhaps some private funding, but most likely using the "On" button, most experiments start that way.
Technology and it's exponential curvature would suggest that any apparatus used to develop the universe would constantly be updated and "expanded".
There is a saying that some Professors use, "Keep it Simple". Rather than trying to start a whole universe off with everything you see before being exactly duplicated ("Made in the image of"), you'd start with a clean slate and place into it an evolution algorithm (albeit on occasion some tampering might be necessary when it starts to tangent) You'd then allow the universe to grow and "evolve" (which is necessary since the very first fundamentals for a new universe is define the "physics" for everything else to then fall in place).
I technically don't, however I would suggest that if I had the time I would try to get a Phd on the subject of "How to create an Emulated Universe using parallel implementation and recursive tunnelling structures".not quoted by Shadow said:
.
sorry, not convinced, but botth are theories right? nothing is 100% sure, so, we are both correct, all are theories, and we can never act like we know all, because we don't know anything.
sorry, not convinced, but botth are theories right? nothing is 100% sure, so, we are both correct, all are theories, and we can never act like we know all, because we don't know anything.
Wrong.
Just because two different arguments are not 100% certain does NOT give them the same weight.
Evidently you don't what "theory" means in science.
Please please please tell me you're playing thick or asking a question and not demonstrating the most bat shit crazy eye wateringly ignorant moronic stupidity ever to pass out the mouth of internet creationists.....
I don't know for sure that I couldn't fly if I were pushed off a cliff. Would someone suggesting I could be 'equally likely' to fly as not fly be right? No. I don't know what 3959395839 * 4896839593 is but do I view someone suggesting the answer 5 to be as likely to be right as someone who works it out using pen and paper or a calculator? Hell no.
I don't have to know the right answer to a question to be able to identify wrong answers. I pray (to the Flying Spaghetti Monster) you're just playing thick.
I thought most variations on the Big Bang Theory do involve infinite universes (in spatial extent), so the title doesn't make any sense to me. Other than that, there seems to be an important point that's missed here: It doesn't matter who or what created/caused the Big Bang. No matter how many explanations science gives and how deep we push the picture, there will always be some basic fundamental assumption somewhere that we can't explain aside from the fact that it just happens to work. That's the direction in which theoretical physics has been going for the last 400 years.
Theoretical physics shows us underlying patterns and rules to how things are run in nature. Any explanation theoretical physics gives for such patterns is simply going to explain them in terms of even deeper patterns. All we know is that about 13 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense, and it's been expanding and cooling ever since. As far as how the Big Bang was caused or what happened further back in time or if there even is such a thing as "further back in time", for all we know it could have been unicorns or Carebears that started the whole thing.
Theoretical physics shows us underlying patterns and rules to how things are run in nature. Any explanation theoretical physics gives for such patterns is simply going to explain them in terms of even deeper patterns. All we know is that about 13 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense, and it's been expanding and cooling ever since. As far as how the Big Bang was caused or what happened further back in time or if there even is such a thing as "further back in time", for all we know it could have been unicorns or Carebears that started the whole thing.
.
no, that's facts,
theory, is for what we don't know it clearly, so we pose theories about it, a theory, doesn't always means to be totally true, like the dark matter, some scientists, say that the dark matter doesnt exist, but it's a kind of energy
no, that's facts,
theory, is for what we don't know it clearly, so we pose theories about it, a theory, doesn't always means to be totally true, like the dark matter, some scientists, say that the dark matter doesnt exist, but it's a kind of energy
Wrong.
A theory in science is something that is solid - as close as possible to being "proven".
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...y&sa=X&ei=rPYsTJ-gF6G80gTitNS1CQ&ved=0CBcQkAE
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theory
You're using it in the non-scientific sense.
You should have looked it up after my post #9.
You have fallen into the same trap that all the creationists nuts do. To a layperson 'theory' is synonymous with 'guess', to a scientist it means 'a model which has passed considerable experimental testing'.
For instance, gravity is a fact, the model of the behaviour of gravity is the theory of general relativity. Evolution, as in change over time in biological systems, is fact. The model which says this is driven by natural selection is the theory of evolution. Nothing in science is really a law, its just a matter of history we call such things as Newton's dynamical equations as 'Newton's laws'. We know of violations in such 'laws' because in effect they are only good approximations, we've surpassed pretty much everything which was called a 'law' in the 1800s with superior theories now.