|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Do you think the Big-Bang really happened?
As for myself, I don't think it really happened because it's just impossible that a microscopic ball of energy exploded and created the universe... why would it have been there?
Why would it have explode?
How would ALL the elements of the universe enter in a small ball of energy...?
Why would it have explode?
How would ALL the elements of the universe enter in a small ball of energy...?
I think it did create the universe, althought it does seem a little weird.. like everything of the universe is 1 little dot..
I certainly believe it couse i don't believe in god and it's the only theory i've ever heard about the beginning of earth.
I certainly believe it couse i don't believe in god and it's the only theory i've ever heard about the beginning of earth.
The big bang definitely did happen, it has been proved by really big telescopes and the doppler effect. But was it the beginning of the universe? Theres no real evidence for that but if the universe did have a beginning, at this point it is logical to say it was the big bang but something always has a cause and currently we don't know what that is.
The majority of the observations made by scientists (light, radiation, ...) indicate that the universe is expanding (to be precise faster and faster). The more you go back in time, the smaller the universe gets. The age is currently estimated at 13.7 billion years with 200 million years precision.
Now if something is getting bigger and bigger, the reasoning of scientists is that it must have started very small. Now there are also remainings/effects of an explosion being observed.
That's what makes the Big Bang theory so credible to scientists. (for your information a scientific theory is not the same as the daily usage of a "theory", it is a description/model of phenomena, a scientific law is part of a theory)
Now of course it might always be that the the theory is proven wrong. But even then the 'real'/new theory will be more or less the same as it should explain the same facts and observations.
Now, in my opinion, this doesn't necessarily imply a dot, it can also mean something really small.
The theory is made by the most reputable scientists and is (or tried to be) made in according to all current knowledge of science. The current status of science does indeed state it should explode. This has been simulated numerous times and does result in the creation of galaxies, similar to the ones in reality.
Now if that was the beginning of our universe, then the elements did not have to get there, that's just how it started. The 'time' we experience is also a part of this universe and was created then. This means that there is no way to say what happened before the Big Bang as it was also the beginning of time. It is rather a question of how.
Now if something is getting bigger and bigger, the reasoning of scientists is that it must have started very small. Now there are also remainings/effects of an explosion being observed.
That's what makes the Big Bang theory so credible to scientists. (for your information a scientific theory is not the same as the daily usage of a "theory", it is a description/model of phenomena, a scientific law is part of a theory)
Now of course it might always be that the the theory is proven wrong. But even then the 'real'/new theory will be more or less the same as it should explain the same facts and observations.
Now, in my opinion, this doesn't necessarily imply a dot, it can also mean something really small.
| Quote: |
| Why would it have explode? |
The theory is made by the most reputable scientists and is (or tried to be) made in according to all current knowledge of science. The current status of science does indeed state it should explode. This has been simulated numerous times and does result in the creation of galaxies, similar to the ones in reality.
| Quote: |
| How would ALL the elements of the universe enter in a small ball of energy...? |
Now if that was the beginning of our universe, then the elements did not have to get there, that's just how it started. The 'time' we experience is also a part of this universe and was created then. This means that there is no way to say what happened before the Big Bang as it was also the beginning of time. It is rather a question of how.
I've read some interesting speculation that the big bang could be the beginning of a vacum function. (A phenomenon usualy taking place only at the quantum level where a particle creates itself and divides, by way of the unceartainty principle and eventualy comes back together again, causing the particle to travel back in time an spontainiously appear, making the original particle. Basicly something from nothing.) There is a very tiny chance that this could happen on a grand a scale as the big bang. Following this logic, the universe will be contracted by it's own gravity, and when the 'big crunch' is complete, the universe will travel back in time and start the whole process over again. (by the way, this time travel talk is perfectly rational, it happens all the time on a particle level, this would just involve a great many particles doing so at once.)
It seems to be the most popular theory, outside of a Creator. Now, I would be careful with phrases like "It definately happened" because the truth is, or as I've learned in since elementary school, is that we just don't know. Yes there's evidence of explosions, but what brought about those explosions?
If only we could turn back time... As for me, most of you should know, I don't believe in the big bang as it is being represented by many people, but I'm not stupid enough to completely rule it out. I'll spare my personal beliefs here, and keep it to big bang only, I thought you might like that.
If only we could turn back time... As for me, most of you should know, I don't believe in the big bang as it is being represented by many people, but I'm not stupid enough to completely rule it out. I'll spare my personal beliefs here, and keep it to big bang only, I thought you might like that.
as an aethesist i usedm to blindy believe that god nothing, but big bang did everything, sooooooo, i still beleieve in the big bang, its a good sound theory that seems to be self explanitory, but of course what started it? what put it there. Of course god might have put it there, thus making the bible a lie.
i dont know, to much for this early in the morn
i dont know, to much for this early in the morn
I don't believe it happened but it is just my view!
| Quote: |
| thus making the bible a lie. |
It would not.
Genesis 1:1
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Now, that "created" could be from a big bang, that is, of course, if the big bang actually happened (we don't know).
I don't think that there was just one big bang. I don't think EVERYTHING in the universe was in that one ball. Maybe there are many many many big bangs that happen all the time, but they are really far apart so we can't see them and they don't interfere with eachother. That's just a wild guess though...
I always wondered about something similar to what ocalhoun said. I thought maybe when the big bang happened, not all of it exploded and a large portion of the original "ball" was still left behind. What if the rate that everything is moving apart isn't a constant rate? Maybe it's slowing down from the gravitiy from the original ball. Maybe the speed of everything that is expanding is less than the escape velocity of the ball. Maybe everything will slow down until it finally stops and starts getting pulled back together. Just like when you through a baseball straight up in the air, it slows down then starts in the opposite way (towards the ground). Then, from the huge impact of everything being pulled back together, it expolodes when it combines again And it starts all over again...
I didn't read this anywhere, I just thought of it one day, did anybody ever hear of anything like this before? Somebody had to have thought of it before I did.
I don't know too much about this kind of stuff (though I'd like to kearn more) so there's probably a lot of reasons why this isn't true.
I always wondered about something similar to what ocalhoun said. I thought maybe when the big bang happened, not all of it exploded and a large portion of the original "ball" was still left behind. What if the rate that everything is moving apart isn't a constant rate? Maybe it's slowing down from the gravitiy from the original ball. Maybe the speed of everything that is expanding is less than the escape velocity of the ball. Maybe everything will slow down until it finally stops and starts getting pulled back together. Just like when you through a baseball straight up in the air, it slows down then starts in the opposite way (towards the ground). Then, from the huge impact of everything being pulled back together, it expolodes when it combines again And it starts all over again...
I didn't read this anywhere, I just thought of it one day, did anybody ever hear of anything like this before? Somebody had to have thought of it before I did.
I don't know too much about this kind of stuff (though I'd like to kearn more) so there's probably a lot of reasons why this isn't true.
I would also advise people that claim that the big bang is a sure fact to avoid such things, because in all honesty - it's not proven. It's a theory based on some evidence we have, nothing more.
The following is an excerpt that I found intriguing from JeffLindsay.com entitled "The Bursting of the Big Bang." Even if you still believe in the big bang, I'd recommend you read it for insight into the other side of the beliefs.
Read the full article here. Please note that it is opinionated.
The following is an excerpt that I found intriguing from JeffLindsay.com entitled "The Bursting of the Big Bang." Even if you still believe in the big bang, I'd recommend you read it for insight into the other side of the beliefs.
| Quote: |
| A Big Bang may have happened, but we need not put any faith in the broader "Big Bang Theory" that claims the universe as we know it could come into being by purely accidental or natural means after its explosive initiation. True, many scientists claim that the Big Bang theory is "the best scientific explanation" yet for the origin of the universe. And without doubt, the Big Bang Theory as the sole explanation for the universe will continue to be taught and believed for many years to come. However, the reality is that the immensely popular Big Bang Theory is dead.
While few people have seen the obituary, an article by Andrei Linde in the November 1994 Scientific American (pp. 48-55) reveals that the Big Bang Theory has been scientifically brain dead for a long time. Dr. Linde, a professor of physics at Stanford, discusses six of the overwhelming problems in the theory that have been known, but not widely publicized, for many years. For example, calculations based on the Big Bang theory predict a universe so small that it could hold no more 10 atomic particles; a density of matter 15 orders of magnitude (ten followed by 15 zeros) greater than we observe; and a curvature of space that is off by 60 orders of magnitude. An initial explosion may have happened, but al attempts to calculate what should have happened next (without the influence of God) result in absurd conclusions. The Big Bang cannot explain the nature of the universe as we know it. Fortunately, Dr. Linde has the solution for those who do not wish to believe in divine creation. He offers a new and improved theory, the "self-reproducing inflationary universe" in which new universes are constantly erupting out of random quantum fluctuations. The mathematics of this model supposedly solve some of the old problems in the Big Bang Theory. There are elegant aspects to Linde's model, and perhaps he is right. However, I suspect that those without degrees in astrophysics will find the new theory so bizarre and incomprehensible that intelligent creation may seem to be the best scientific explanation yet for the origin of the universe. For that reason, I'm sure that the Big Bang Theory will continue to be taught as gospel truth, for it is much easier to believe. Call that progress, if you will. As for me and many of my friends in the scientific community, the brilliant engineering and masterful art of this planet and universe provide rational evidence for a brilliant Engineer and a masterful Artist. |
Read the full article here. Please note that it is opinionated.
I really try to speculate on this matter all the time. this is one of the subject that fascinates me more than any other. I always think about how the universe has to end, or begin, or something. It begins to hurt my head after i think about it too much. Its like there is so much out there, the universe has to be a plane of some sort. But what if the universe is just one small "piece" of an even larger thing?
It really is amazing to think about. There HAS to be another planet, within the billions and billions of other planets in our universe, like ours. There is simply no way that we are the ONLY planet in the universe that was/is suitable for life. Think of the thousands of other planets like us, with the capabilities to evolve just like ours, with humans, or maybe even mroe advanced evolution of man.
This is the part that makes me think. Maybe even on another planet like earth, there is an exact copy of you. Or maybe im jsut getting too far out there and thinking irrationally. You decide. But i swear im not a wierdo who thinks about it all day. Im jsut a normal person who happens to have a wierd thought or two on the subject.
It really is amazing to think about. There HAS to be another planet, within the billions and billions of other planets in our universe, like ours. There is simply no way that we are the ONLY planet in the universe that was/is suitable for life. Think of the thousands of other planets like us, with the capabilities to evolve just like ours, with humans, or maybe even mroe advanced evolution of man.
This is the part that makes me think. Maybe even on another planet like earth, there is an exact copy of you. Or maybe im jsut getting too far out there and thinking irrationally. You decide. But i swear im not a wierdo who thinks about it all day. Im jsut a normal person who happens to have a wierd thought or two on the subject.
Soulfire: Don't take that article seriously, there are many misconceptions about the big bang in it. First of all there is no evidence that the big bang was the beginning of the universe, no evidence that it isn't ether (we know the universe exists, everything we know tels us that everything has a beginning and an end but that doesn't mean everything has a beginning and an end, I could go on but it would end up being redundant) that is a popular assumption but not a proven fact and no one said that it happened by accident, we don't know what caused it.
The article is nothing more than a theist trying to use holes in our knowledge and common misconceptions too promote creationism.
The article is nothing more than a theist trying to use holes in our knowledge and common misconceptions too promote creationism.
| airek wrote: |
| I always think about how the universe has to end, or begin, or something. It begins to hurt my head after i think about it too much. Its like there is so much out there, the universe has to be a plane of some sort. But what if the universe is just one small "piece" of an even larger |
| The Conspirator wrote: |
| Soulfire: Don't take that article seriously, there are many misconceptions about the big bang in it. First of all there is no evidence that the big bang was the beginning of the universe, no evidence that it isn't ether (we know the universe exists, everything we know tels us that everything has a beginning and an end but that doesn't mean everything has a beginning and an end, I could go on but it would end up being redundant) that is a popular assumption but not a proven fact and no one said that it happened by accident, we don't know what caused it.
The article is nothing more than a theist trying to use holes in our knowledge and common misconceptions too promote creationism. |
Alright, but you don't take the big bang theory too seriously either. I realize that it's your choice to believe in it, but I think people assume that because it's accepted by most, but not proven, that it's true - and that's a far more common misconception than any that was made by the author of the article.
Yes, the universe did have a beginning - and there's evidence of explosions, but one cannot simply conclude that a big bang is 100% accurate, nor can anyone disprove it. If it works for you, so be it.
But the point of articles like this is to create holes in the knowledge (regardless of what it's trying to promote), because it's important that people are exposed to ALL sides.
I believe the big bang cause I did my research and there is more than enough evidence to prove it.
The expanding universe that not only has been proven to be expanding but has been found to be accelerating.
The cosmic microwave backgrounds radiation.
We may not yet understand it cause be we know it happened.
The expanding universe that not only has been proven to be expanding but has been found to be accelerating.
The cosmic microwave backgrounds radiation.
We may not yet understand it cause be we know it happened.
I did my research too, and there's more than enough evidence for me to accept the "big bang" as the best explanation for what is actually observable and measurable out in the real world rather than in a book or in peoples' heads. I won't claim that the BB is proven, because (like most scientific theories) it is very hard to prove. All you can do is to keep devising ever more elaborate or more detailed or broader or deeper (or whatever) tests of the theory. All that we have is the theory and a series of tests and experiments that have failed to disprove it yet.
Anyway, as Bondings pointed out, if (or when) somebody does find a flaw in the theory, what replaces it will have to stand up to at least the same tests and experiments and predict the real world observations at least as accurately. This is as true for BB theory as any other. The trouble with many alternative "theories" and stories is that they simply cannot be used to make measurable predictions about the real world that match with reality to any high level of accuracy. That's as true for the bible stories as it is for many others - I'm not singling out any religious groups here...
Finally, the article from Scientific American is also hopelessly out of date. More recent models and simulations do give a much better match to reality.
Anyway, as Bondings pointed out, if (or when) somebody does find a flaw in the theory, what replaces it will have to stand up to at least the same tests and experiments and predict the real world observations at least as accurately. This is as true for BB theory as any other. The trouble with many alternative "theories" and stories is that they simply cannot be used to make measurable predictions about the real world that match with reality to any high level of accuracy. That's as true for the bible stories as it is for many others - I'm not singling out any religious groups here...
Finally, the article from Scientific American is also hopelessly out of date. More recent models and simulations do give a much better match to reality.
| Quote: |
| Anyway, as Bondings pointed out, if (or when) somebody does find a flaw in the theory, what replaces it will have to stand up to at least the same tests and experiments and predict the real world observations at least as accurately. |
Thats what makes science so superior when looking for answer to where we come from. Its flexible and relys on evidence unlike religion which states that its true no matter what the evidence says.
I say it has been proven, all the evidence we have points to it. It is possible that can change in the future but as things stand now its pretty much proven.
Something proven can be disproven.
 |