| THEORIES WITH PROBLEMS - THE BIG BANG THEORY -> Big Bang? | Start A New Topic | Reply |
| Post Info | TOPIC: Big Bang? |
| Posted By: Darth Vader Posted On: May 31, 2004 Views: 361 | RE: Big Bang? |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: May 31, 2004 Views: 359 | RE: Big Bang? |
| Posted By: Hil Posted On: May 31, 2004 Views: 351 | RE: Big Bang? I was trying to write a short summary of flaws in the Big Bang theory. This happened to be one of the places I looked. I AM in highschool, so I'm sure this limits how much I can actually understand without a lot of background study, but I assure you, I am quite intelligent. So that leads me to this statement: None of your formal paragraph essays really answer anything for me. Can anyone answer this for me: What are some specific flaws in the theory, and where did the evidence of them come from? |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 1, 2004 Views: 348 | RE: Big Bang? If you really are 'quite intelligent' then why on earth are you asking for information on such a complex subject by asking on a message board? A quick read through some of the postings will reveal just how stupid some people are, so why ask? Do your own research, don't expect others to do it for you, they may be the stupid ones. |
| Posted By: Darth Vader Posted On: Jun 1, 2004 Views: 347 | RE: Big Bang? Quote: "Your explanation of how things like radiation, comets, asteroids, gamma waves, space ships, etc., all move through this so called 'nothing' is to claim they don't! At least, I think that's what you are saying, but its hard to know, I never before heard anyone call space travel 'an arbitration'!!! Care to explain?" ok. I consider the universe to be a continuum, existing in completeness (like anything that exists). According to what I've read in various dictionaries, a continuum is defined as a "whole", no "part" of which can be distinguished, except by arbitrary means. In the case of space, we can perceive it relative to us, but no such relativity is possible with the universe. There's the universe and there's incomprehensibility on one hand, while space and our "sense" of it on the other. I don't think there's "nothing" between us and the rest of the universe, just that whatever there is, is either so far immeasurable (we are unaware of it), or it's electromagnetic radiation, matter, etc. I don't believe there's such a thing as empty space, no matter how small the "volume" (not infinitely small though), because it seems that there have always got to be some vibrations (plus the universe is a continuum, so you can't have a "void of no interactions" in it anywhere). As the EM field is a continuum, if you remove the concept of space from the picture, the EM field still is. It needs nothing to "travel" through, no "carrier". It "carries" (sustains) itself. The electric field carries the magnetic field and vice versa. It's part of the universal continuum, however, which means we can only distinguish it arbitrarily. The same goes for matter and everything else. It all continuously interacts and changes, hence to connectiveness, and hence a continuum of constant change. I also argue, in the case of relativity, that if an object moves through a medium (whatever it is), it can be equally argued that the medium is moving passed it; analogous to the Newtonian equal and opposite reaction law of forces. Which means that the net force of the system (or net motion) is zero. It seems bizarre, I know, but it makes sense to me. In terms of space existing, I was getting philosophical. What I meant was that because you can't locate the universe anywhere, because it's all there is, it has no "location". If it has no location, nothing that's arbitrarily a part of it can either, hence, even if space exists, it has no location. But since space is dependent on there being a location somewhere, it seems that it can't exist. I know that you can't model without space (using computers, etc.), but from the point of view I raised, it perceptually makes sense. I also don't believe gravity dominates the universe because its force drops off with the inverse of the square of distance, F = G*(M*m)/(r^2), along with the electrostatic force, F = 1/(4*pi*epsilon[0])*(Qq)/(r^2), whereas the current force drops of with the inverse only: B = (mu[0])/(2*pi)*I/r & F = (mu[0])/(2*pi)*(I[1]*I[2])/r. For an increase in temperature, I meant to cited the ideal gas law: P*V = n*R*T. P = pressure, V = volume, n = number of molecules present, R = universal gas constant and T = temp. In this case, temperature is directly proportional to volume and pressure,, which means, as an approximation, they should relate and change according. Maybe there's something I missed, I don't know. Within the vast expanse of the universe our Earth is a speck. Likewise all other large masses are specks. The behaviour of these specks, like the molecules of the "ideal" gas, is subject to the gas laws. If you say the temperature decreased from the thousands of K of a hot beginning to only 2.7 K, then it seems you're stuck with the gas laws. I also recognised that the subatomic particles (proton, neutron and electron), have their own "radial" charge densities, distribution, so that the charge itself "fades" away with distance, r, which seems to be a continuum characteristic. That the earth has an "exosphere" also strongly indicates to me a continuum fade away, where density of matter gets less and less, but never gets to zero. That electromagnetic waves "travel" through space also means that they exist as a continuum (part of the universal continuum) out in "space", and here on earth. Earth magnetic field is also a continuum, as are all. It all seems to fit. Maybe I'm wrong, but it suits me just fine. There you are, maybe a bit better explained. Maybe not. See ya, goodbye, thanks for the site. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 1, 2004 Views: 344 | RE: Big Bang? |
| Posted By: Cosmic catastrophe Posted On: Jun 1, 2004 Views: 338 | RE: Big Bang? |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 2, 2004 Views: 333 | RE: Big Bang? |
| Posted By: Zoogies! Posted On: Jun 2, 2004 Views: 331 | RE: Big Bang? If it were really that contradictory and obviously false, it would be highly controversial and probably long overturned. *looks around* Nope, it seems you guys are all in possession of greater knowledge than even Carl Rolfe. So please, take your predetermined quantum logic and stun the world with your solid proof that the big bang is wrong. PS - that the big bang 'may' be incorrect is not proof that it is. |
| Posted By: Jo Posted On: Jun 14, 2004 Views: 321 | RE: Big Bang? Thanks Olive. I'm a Christian Creationist too and at school I love debating against the evolutionists and big bang theorists. At the moment I'm researching for a science project in which we could choose any subject. Teachers beware! I chose 'proving the big bang wrong'! Carry on in your faith and continue to speak out the truth. I believe God created the world in 6 days in the away stated in Genesis. www.answersingenesis.org is a great site. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 14, 2004 Views: 319 | RE: Big Bang? I know that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it just seems to me that to believe that God created the world in 6 days, is, in this day and age, unbelievable. God used to be held responsible for all the things we didn't understand, be it the changing weather, the rising of the sun, diseases, crop failure, you name it. Now days we understand these things and no longer need to resort to saying it is the mysterious workings of God. If God created the world, then who created God? Where was God before he created the universe? Why did it take him 6 days? He could have done it in a split second, being so clever and all. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jul 20, 2004 Views: 293 | RE: Big Bang? If you have waded through all the other postings and reached here then well done! You deserve a small reward, and here it is. Please note that the posters: CR, Principle Skinner, Tez, Cosmic Catastrophy, Achilles Hell and Darth Vader, are all one and the same person. If you now read through them again it makes hilarious reading! KEITH |
| Posted By: cr Posted On: Jul 27, 2004 Views: 282 | RE: Big Bang? |
| Posted By: nazdeck Posted On: Nov 8, 2004 Views: 189 | RE: Big Bang? |
| Posted By: Greg Posted On: Dec 21, 2004 Views: 174 | RE: Big Bang? I've read through this entire thread. This is my first post here by the way. Some background on me: 35, born and raised in the Northeast United States and raised as a Catholic. My father was and is a devout Christian, and attempted to pass that faith on to me. Unfortunately for him, I lived in the 20th Century and had access to things like libraries and PBS shows like NOVA and Carl Sagan's COSMOS. Before I could ride a bike I was thinking in secular terms and not religious ones. Although I went through the motions, going to Church, and read the Bible (KJV) cover to cover, I kept having these questions... questions I think I would have asked anyway, but my exposure to the accumulated learning of all those who came before me had me reaching a paradox of logic. The Bible was written by men who lived in a time when they thought their world was both flat and the center of the Universe, their darkness lit only by fire. If the being they claim to be describing had been in their presence, said being was lacking at least any expressed knowledge of the factual Universe or the fundamental precepts of science that we take for granted today. No effort was made to better the mortal condition of men (let alone women) here in "this life", no mention of cures for diseases that he himself didn't do, no mention of how to build better buildings, aquaducts, how not to dump your garbage in the street, no clues about the possibilities of medicine... in short this entity described was entirely uninterested in this reality to the point of not sharing any fragment of his alleged "omnipotence", or he had only as much awareness of things as his contemporaries. Without wandering too far down the path of "science vs. religion", suffice to say that the very existence of so many world religions, both practiced today and those "gods" that lay forgotten (Odin, Ra, Zeus, Mythria, etc), and even then the fragmentation within each (Christianity alone has myriad versions), it's painfully clear that either all of them are wrong except one or all of them are wrong. I identify myself as an atheist now, without hesitation or fear of debate with any hardened Christian or follower of any other religion. Not to be confrontational, again my own father is a devout Christian, and instead of turning us against eachother, we have some great discussions. We rarely agree, and we each claim that the discussion only strengthens our respective positions, but I do love him, he's my Dad. And I know he loves me. If only strangers who argue over religious differences or atheism vs. theism could be so motivated to remain on good terms after any such debate, this world would have 95% fewer wars. In my opinion, religion is all a construction of man, we make gods in our own image to fill the needs of our various human cultures across all our history on this world. It evolves as we do, as our culture does. (Memes) Back to the Big Bang. (Sorry for the detour). There seems to me to be little doubt as to the validity of it's occurrance. It happened. It's cause and implications are what are in question. I am a layperson-scientist. Call it a hobby. But I am well informed. The evidence of the event we call the Big Bang seems impossible to ignore or twist rationally into anything that disproves it or even suggests it did not happen. I for one am not comfortable with the notion that it was the absolute beginning of everything including time. I don't like something from nothing. That may sound on it's surface to be a religious argument but it's not - I believe that the Big Bang was merely a restructuring, a reorganization of what came before it. The "Primordial egg", the great singularity pinpoint that was ground zero of the Big Bang has been discussed as one of the theory's "problems". I see it as a strength; there is something I thought of years ago that I've never seen published (and if you use this and claim it as your own I'll sue every one of you! LOL J/K): Gravitational Inversion. It's theoretically possible if the laws of physics and quantum mechanics were indeed suspended for three seconds or so after the BigBang. In fact, if you can imagine a black hole with all the mass of the Universe crammed into one area, if the ENTIRE Universe including all of it's laws and properties were IN the state of being in/part of/all of a black hole, then how COULD gravity apply? It couldn't. Gravity is a function of matter ON matter within this Universe. If the entire contents of this Universe were inside a black hole, that black hole would have nothing to interact on, like a monopole on a magnet - impossible. There would BE no event horizon, as the contents of this singularity would BE the universe, and no event horizon could exist outside it. It would be under those extreme and seemingly impossible conditions that physical law would write itself as the singularity fails. In fact, it is my perception that this singularity referred to as the "primordial egg" could only have existed for a fraction of a nanosecond, the ultimate collapse (quintessence perhaps) of the Universe as it existed prior to blasting back outwards again. I know, I know, the idea of expansion-slow down-stagnation-collapse-big crunch-BigBang-Expansion again and the "cycle" theory have been raised before but largely discarded. However, I think this new angle on it is also in harmony with the newest and more controversial claims of M Theory and String Theory. Whew. Helluva first post. Your thoughts? -Greg |
| Pages [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next Page -> |