| THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - THE BIG BANG THEORY -> Big Bang? | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Big Bang? |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: May 1, 2002 Views: 2439 | Big Bang? It is only a theory, but it does match observations and I have yet to see a better one. |
| Posted By: Chris Posted On: May 1, 2002 Views: 2435 | RE: RE: Big Bang? You will not see a better theory! |
| Posted By: Jonathon Thomas Posted On: Jul 7, 2002 Views: 2412 | RE: Big Bang? I agree. As the author of this summary of 'The Big Bang Theory' stated, "The situation is such that any new theory, far from displacing the Big Bang, would have to incorporate it. In other words, it can only be improved upon in much the same way that Einstein incorporated Newton's theory of gravity into his own theory of relativity. Relativity did not overthrow Newton's theory, it incorporated and developed it." |
| Posted By: Russ Posted On: Jul 23, 2002 Views: 2399 | RE: Big Bang? All through history man has thought he had hard evidence that his theories were true but how many times has man proved himself wrong. There are some fundamental flaws in the big bang theory which is very close to being discredited. The only way the universe could possibly exist would be in an infinite state. Give me M theory anyday. To think of the universe as not being of infinite size is ludicrous in the extreme. Big Bang - Big Schmang! |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jul 23, 2002 Views: 2397 | RE: Big Bang? Its true what you say about theories often being proved wrong. A theory is only a mathematical model used to explain observed phenomenon. The Big Bang may not yet be the ultimate theory, but it does explain many observed phenomenon better and more comprehensively than any other. M theory is indeed very interesting, and may explain the missing mass problem, but so far is only an alternative theory with no scientific evidence to support it. Maybe it will be accepted, maybe it will be proved wrong, but it has a long way to go before replacing the Big Bang theory. The fact that you consider an infinite universe more palatable than a finite one is a matter of your personal likes and dislikes, and does not go any way to justifing M theory. |
| Posted By: Ben Posted On: Jul 24, 2002 Views: 2392 | RE: Big Bang? i like what the guy above me said; as he said a theory is only a mathematical model used to explain observed phenomenae and that is true. So under this standard, could you even call the big bang, a theory? A lot of things in astrophysics is hog wash. The big bang is just a story; not a theory. That is simply because it does not possess any simple qualities of a theory. A theory is a mathematical and sometimes complexe explanation of an consistent observation; something the big bang lacks. If there was such overwhelming evidence that there was a big bang, why are they still putting in millions of dollars to find it? I assumed they already had enough. Obviously, when you dig around, whether or not it explains the most, or is simply the "best" in opinion, one would realize that the big bang does not deserve its title as a thoery and support which was just a bunch of herd mentality in the first place-with no hard evidence and only modified "proof" story telling. There are a lot of questions people have raised, and they are starting to take its toll on this "theory". I know it is not perfectly sound, but who said you'd have develop on it anyway other than someone who says it is the best!? That is not proof and nor is it scientifically reasonable enough for me, it should be scrapped quickly and we should use what we know. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jul 26, 2002 Views: 2388 | RE: Big Bang? The comments above from BEN include the phrases: "The Big Bang is just a story" "A lot of things in astrophysics is hog wash" "The Big Bang lacks scientific proof" "Just a bunch of herd mentality" "No hard evidence" "Not scientifically reasonable enough for me" "It should be scrapped quickly" Okay Ben, we can see where you are coming from, but how much proof do you need? The Big Bang theory is not complete, granted, (Can any theory claim that?) but at least it is entirely based on scientific observation and sound mathematics. It is not based on empty rhetoric and subjective opinion, it is based on known facts. Try reading the page again and if you find anything wrong with the facts that support the theory, then please share it with us. We eagerly await your reasons for why you think it is "just a story" without "scientific evidence". Or is it just that you don't like it? Keith. |
| Posted By: Ben Posted On: Jul 29, 2002 Views: 2380 | RE: Big Bang? |
| Posted By: Shane Posted On: Aug 14, 2002 Views: 2343 | RE: Big Bang? Can I get a dollar for everytime Ben reworded the same sentence in his "5 formal paragraphy essay?" Please? I could really use the money. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Aug 15, 2002 Views: 2340 | RE: Big Bang? I agree. Ben mentions that the Big Bang lacks experimental evidence at least a dozen times, but only comes up with a few, incorrect, arguments. Missing mass for example has nothing at all to do with the number of galaxies discovered, but how they rotate about their core, and does not contradict the BB theory. The age of the universe, using Hubble's constant, and Cepheid variables for measurement, has nothing to do with disproving the Big Bang, only a means of trying to get an accurate age for the universe. The argument that the cosmic microwave background radiation was predicted as being 15K+ and is in fact 2.7K is hardly reason to rubbish the theory. And how do you calculate that to be a 5000 fold difference? Also the existence of super clusters of galaxies and voids in between does not go against the BB theory either. As for the experiment producing magnetohydrodynamic waves within a tank of mercury, never heard of it, but would question the validity of the experiment in relation to the Big Bang. None of Ben's arguments disprove the BB theory, they only go to show that continuing research throws up more accurate information that adds to our knowledge. The BB theory is not complete, no theory is, but it has not shown to be wrong, and that is a huge difference. There are still questions to be answered, but that is the very nature of research. |
| Posted By: Katie Posted On: Oct 15, 2002 Views: 2254 | RE: Big Bang? The Big Bang Theory: God spoke, and BANG! it happened. |
| Posted By: Brendan Posted On: Oct 21, 2002 Views: 2246 | RE: Big Bang? why would speaking lead to the creation of the universe? |
| Posted By: Katie Posted On: Oct 21, 2002 Views: 2243 | God = POWER God speaking and resulting in the creation of the universe is possible because God is all-powerful. God is...God, therefore, He can do anything, even create the universe. |
| Posted By: Oliver Wong Posted On: Oct 22, 2002 Views: 2237 | RE: Big Bang? Dear everyone who has written on this board, paticularly to the "boardmaster"...thank you for the interesting discussion started here. Well, personally, I'm not a 'science' person so I dont really know much about "Big Bang" and whether it's theory or not. Another thing is, I'd like to make clear that I'm a Christian who believes in Jesus as Saviour and Lord, and firmly hold on to the belief that God created the universe. I know there are Christians out there who believe that yes, God did _create_ the universe; but He also created it through "Big Bang". (An e.g. would be Katie...who posted messages before mine). I'm sorry to say that I dont believe God 'used' "Big Bang" to create the universe. My problem with accepting the "Big Bang" theory is not with the theory itself; rather, it's because the theory propagates a universe that's (about) 13 billion years old where the Bible stated a 6-day creation of the universe. Unless "Big Bang" tells a 6-day creation, I cannot agree with it. I dont want to be dogmatic (even though I might sound like one :) And well, yeah, I welcome comments (if there're any...). |
| Posted By: Oliver Wong Posted On: Oct 22, 2002 Views: 2236 | RE: To Katie Hi Katie, I'm sorry if I've assumed _wrongly_ in the message above that you meant God created the universe through "Big Bang"...where you wrote: >Subject: RE: Big Bang? >The Big Bang Theory: God spoke, and BANG! it >happened. What I should do was to ask you what do you really mean by that? CLICK ON PAGE [2] FOR CONTINUATION OF THIS TOPIC |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next Page -> |