| 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: 911 | RE: Big Bang? Come to think of it, Keith, if all theories can be shown to be wrong because they can be changed and disputed, then I'd have to draw the conclusion that I honesty dont give a **** whether the BBT is believed to be right or wrong anyway. In fact, who gives a **** about evolution either. I find all this discussion for and against theories and our picky ways of attempting to bring each others arguments down to be rather sobering and ****ing typical. So my final opinion, and final word on all the questions you have asked me repeatedly, based on your view that the BBT is the most accurate one yet, is that I honestly dont give a ****! This discussion board is the place for any tom, dick and harry to have a slang and convey any old opinion they want. Therefore, I honestly dont give a **** about it either. It makes much more sense to find somewhere with similar interests and beliefs. Granted, you wanted peoples views (otherwise there wouldnt be a discussion board), but did you honestly think that people would agree with you all the time? Its a discussion board of opinions after all. Then again, thats just my opinion. See ya. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: May 31, 2004 Views: 909 | RE: Big Bang? Yes, Darth Vader, this is a discussion board where anybody can post any comment that they wish, that is, after all, the point of it. However, any statements made of a scientific nature are open to challenge. You have challenged my statements regarding Relativity and the BBT. In return I ask you to explain yourself. For instance: You have now replied that you consider the universe to be ageless (fair enough) and neither expanding nor contracting. Unfortunately it is impossible for the universe to be static, this was first realised around 100 years ago. Gravity makes it impossible for the universe to be static, for if it were gravity would draw it all together into one central lump. It MUST be either expanding, in order to overcome the pull of gravity, or contracting, because of it. It simply CAN'T be static. That is all it takes to render your argument false. As for your claim that space is "nothing" and that "That things travel through space is an arbitration." I am almost lost for words. I find it very odd when people confuse a vacuum with 'nothing', there is no comparison. What you are saying is that between us and the stars there is nothing, and between the galaxies there is nothing. 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? I won't bother to go into discussion about your ideas on gravity, can't be bothered. The point being, Darth Vader, that you began this discussion by challenging relativity and the BBT. What I have done is to challenge your ideas and ask for explanations. Now that you have given an explanation, brief but sufficient for this discussion, it is easy to see why all the points you have raised are wrong. It is not my opinion that you are wrong, but scientific fact. You are entitled, as you have done, to claim that all scientific theories are wrong, but when the explanations that you give are downright stupid, then your arguments collapse. if you are unable to use just a little logic to understand why you must be wrong, then you have a problem because you are ignoring facts and preferring to use your personal choices instead. The BBT is not about personal choice. It is not about likes and dislikes. It is not about scientists having closed minds. The BBT, and Relativity, are about rational deductive logic, mathematical models and verification by experiment, observation and empirical science. Trying to argue against these theories using just your likes and dislikes, supported by obviously flawed reasoning, is doomed to failure. You may as well claim that gravity does not pull things together, it just seems that way because it is an arbitration. Your arguments are as pointless and as daft as that. Because you do not use reasoning you do not present a sensible point of view. Likewise your claim that the expansion of the universe should cause an increase in temperature is foolish in the extreme and demonstrates how little you know about even basic physics, and yet you challenge Relativity and the BBT! Words fail me! In all the postings on this topic, there has not been ONE sensible argument against the BBT. We have had the Plasma Universe with its Electric Sun, the timeless static Universe you propose (first proposed by Fred Hoyle before being shown to be impossible) total confusion by many posters over what a vacuum is (it is not nothing) some very odd ideas about gravity, and so on. Every time, and I do mean every time, I have eventually managed to get the posters to explain themselves, it has become obvious to all why they are wrong. Your arguments are no different, they are wrong. This is a scientific fact, not my opinion! Simply coming back and saying that any theory may be shown to be wrong is not proof that it is wrong! If its wrong then evidence is required to show why its wrong. You say that perhaps you should post on another message board with like-minded individuals. On this point you are correct. There are plenty of weird and wacky sites out there full of like-minded idiots babbling on about the Electric Sun and all sorts. They will welcome a physics ignorant nut like you with open arms. Here is a site you will like, its a heap of unmitigated garbage. Electric Sun Enjoy, and thanks for the postings! |
| Posted By: Hil Posted On: May 31, 2004 Views: 901 | 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: 898 | 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: 897 | 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: 894 | RE: Big Bang? Thanks for your detailed reply Darth Vader. May I call you Darth? It hasn't, Darth, to be honest, helped me to understand why you think Relativity and the BBT are wrong, but never mind, I'm sure it all makes sense to you. I can tell you though that with gases and temperature, the higher the pressure the hotter the gas. As gas expands it cools down, that's how fridges and freezers work. When the Universe was very small and very dense it was very hot, and as it has expanded it has cooled down, in perfect agreement with the laws of thermodynamics. You seem to have got that part completely the opposite way round somehow. Why dont you just do a few simple school books checks before starting an argument on physics and cosmology? You are also wrong with your ideas on Relativity. You say that it doesn't matter if an object is moving through space or space moving past the object. This is in agreement with Einstein. Motion of objects can only be measured in relation to other objects. However, you say that this means: "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." This does NOT make sense. You cannot say that an object is moving through a medium then say the system has zero motion. You just said it did have motion! You can't see the obvious contradiction of your own terms by your own argument? Give me strength! You have also got completely wrong the idea that the universe could be static, for as I have already explained that is totally impossible. I take it that you do now appreciate that rather well known fact? It has been perfectly understood and accepted for 100 years. The expansion of the universe is confirmed by redshift, there really is no argument about it, except in the actual numbers involved in the rate of expansion. Since it is known (and as explained, it really is known) that the universe is expanding, it is obvious that at some point it must have been closer together, and even prior to that even closer together, until at the moment of creation of the universe it must have come from one central point. The cosmic microwave background radiation is yet further evidence of the universe beginning with a big bang. There are many more observations, all detailed on my main page, all supporting the Big Bang Theory. That is it in a nutshell, the BBT states that the universe began as small, hot and dense and has been expanding and cooling ever since. How can you argue against that? Nothing you have said, or anyone else come to that, has found a single fault with the theory. What you have done is put forward arguments that have been very easy to demonstrate as being wrong. So it always is. All those that claim they 'know' the theory is wrong always put forward silly arguments that are obviously wrong, like your static universe and that it should have heated up as it expanded, when even school kids realise that things cool down as they expand. If you want to challenge a theory, then fine, but for heaven's sake get your facts right because it only makes you look stupid when all your arguments are so easily demonstrated to be wrong. Do your homework before launching into an argument about which you have so clearly demonstrated you know next to nothing. It would save a hell of a lot of time. |
| Posted By: Cosmic catastrophe Posted On: Jun 1, 2004 Views: 888 | RE: Big Bang? Hmm. Quote: I can tell you though that with gases and temperature, the higher the pressure the hotter the gas. Yes, that makes sense, just looking at pV = nRT. Quote: As gas expands it cools down, that's how fridges and freezers work. Yes, but it seems that the only way the volume of our universe could expand with decreasing temperature would be for the pressure to decrease from an extremely high pressure to that of the current vacuum of space. So what to attribute to the initial extremely high pressure conditions in the first place? What exerted it? Pressure is force per unit area on an object. That would mean the universe had to have something external force exerted on its bounds. How was that possible? If the pressure has remained constant from the beginning to now (pV = nRT), the only way for the volume to increase is for the temperature to increase unless heat is extracted, or because n increased. Therefore, heat was extracted from our universe, or matter was added. Where did the heat go, or where did the added matter come from? Maybe we do not know yet. Quote: When the Universe was very small and very dense it was very hot, and as it has expanded it has cooled down, in perfect agreement with the laws of thermodynamics. From what I have read, the first law requires that a system exchange energy with surroundings by heat flow/work. Heat simply being attributed to kinetic or electromagnetic energies. The second law seems to have to do with entropy and the increase in disorder of a physical system. Granted, things change, but it does not seem that things always tend towards disorder. Reactions may occur, but that does not seem to me to always mean an increase in disorder, just part of the process of change. Computers are surely ordered systems that could not be brought about without the recycling of materials in the system. The third law of thermodynamics seems to have more to do with entropy at absolute zero. I have also notice that the absolute zero temperature (about 273.15 deg C) is an approximation. I noticed that molecules do not completely cease to vibrate is some way, so there is still vibrational motion. That is fair enough in science, because scientific models are really simplifications of the real world scenarios. Quote: You say that it doesn't matter if an object is moving through space or space moving past the object. This is in agreement with Einstein. Motion of objects can only be measured in relation to other objects. However, you say that this means: "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." This does NOT make sense. You cannot say that an object is moving through a medium then say the system has zero motion. Hmm. I think he meant from the universe versus incomprehensibility perspective. Does the universe move? Through what? Hmm. If it does not move, how can anything that is part of it? Maybe it does. I dont know. Quote: You have also got completely wrong the idea that the universe could be static, for as I have already explained that is totally impossible. I would have thought that that things are always happening, that the universe is not static in that sense. But I still cannot see how it can possibly change in size of it is all there is. I mean, surely you could measure the rate of expansion (change in distance) somehow if it does change in size. Quote: Since it is known (and as explained, it really is known) that the universe is expanding, it is obvious that at some point it must have been closer together, and even prior to that even closer together, until at the moment of creation of the universe it must have come from one central point. The cosmic microwave background radiation is yet further evidence of the universe beginning with a big bang. There are many more observations, all detailed on my main page, all supporting the Big Bang Theory. That is it in a nutshell, the BBT states that the universe began as small, hot and dense and has been expanding and cooling ever since. How can you argue against that? Is not science always about the challenge. If theories of the past did not last, is there not a chance that the Big Bang Theory will not either. Surely that warrants consideration? We are really not to know, if in 100 years time, a knew one will be mainstream. Who is to say either way? We simply do not know. Only time will tell. I mean, people have opinions and observations have interpretations, so we really do not know. After all, there is every chance that I am not the same as I was 5 years ago. Im sitting on the fence. |
| Posted By: Keith Mayes Posted On: Jun 2, 2004 Views: 883 | RE: Big Bang? Hi Cosmic catastrophe, I won't bother to go into all the various points you have raised, they are not new and have already been answered either on this site or many others. I would suggest that perhaps a little more study on the subject of the laws of thermodynamics and entropy would be useful and would answer some of your questions fairly easily. It's very simple to look these things up if you really want to know the answers. I will however take you up on two points that come up time and time again, and have been answered time and time again 1) The BBT explains what happens AFTER the big bang and does not, and CANNOT, explain what happened before, It's just not possible, that is the realm of metaphysics, philosophy and religion as it is beyond the reach of science and facts. There is no point in asking, as you did, "So what to attribute to the initial extremely high pressure conditions in the first place? What exerted it?". You can postulate absolutely anything you want, you could claim the goblins and elves did it, as that claim simply cannot be falsified. The BBT is restrained to falsifiable facts, as is all science, so is UNABLE, AS DOES NOT CLAIM to explain what happened before the big bang. I really do hope I have made that point clear, yet again. 2) You say "Is not science always about the challenge. If theories of the past did not last, is there not a chance that the Big Bang Theory will not either. Surely that warrants consideration?" Yes, who do you think is NOT agreeing with that statement? What I AM saying is this: a) There is no evidence that anything contradicts the BBT. b) It is foolish to claim the theory wrong and to then support that claim with flawed science. "The universe should heat up as it expands" Oh dear, here we go again! c) Because any theory has built into it the potential for it to be proved wrong, does not in anyway suggest that one day it WILL be. d) Yes, it is always worth looking at new theories, but let us not confuse a THEORY, with all the conditions that has placed on it, with a set of ideas, likes and dislikes, feelings of rightness or wrongness, and wild and unsupported speculation. Show me a good theory and I will study it. Show me anything else, like the idiotic web sites already listed, and it really doesnt need a professor of cosmology to recognise a pile of garbage when presented with it. I dont examine garbage, I can smell the stench of it a mile away. |
| Posted By: Zoogies! Posted On: Jun 2, 2004 Views: 881 | 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: 871 | 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: 869 | 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: 843 | 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: 832 | RE: Big Bang? Quote: Please note that the posters: CR, Principle Skinner, Tez, Cosmic Catastrophy, Achilles Hell and Darth Vader, are all one and the same person. CR, Cosmic Catastrophe, Achilles Hell, Darth Vader. Close enough. Im no longer interested in this site, so there will be no more trying to convince anyone about the theory with new names. It was an interesting site to begin with. www.cosmologystatement.org. Regards |
| Posted By: nazdeck Posted On: Nov 8, 2004 Views: 739 | RE: Big Bang? If I understand it correctly, through all the research that I have done on the Big Bang theory, according to the Hubble Law of Big-Bang theory the velocity, v, of a galaxy moving away from us is approximately proportional to the distance, d, of the galaxy from us. And this relationship can be represented by the equality: v = H*d, where H is the Hubble Constant. Also, as I understand it, it is assumed by the mainstream Scientific Community in general that the Hubble Law holds true for all cases of galaxies. However, I believe I have come across evidence that refutes the claim that Hubbles Law supports the theory that the Universe is expanding (space-time is expanding) and that all galaxies are moving away from us: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0409/0409215.pdf It only takes one piece of very strong evidence to show that it is not the case that all galaxies are moving away from us. And the claim that close, blue-shifted galaxies are in random motion has not been given evidence, as such, that successfully substantiated that claim. Furthermore, if this blue-shift is a result of random motion, then it is clear the Hubble Law does not successfully hold for the case of all galaxies. Furthermore still, when the claim is made, as in the case of the situation of NGC 4319, that there is no connection between the objects involved because Hubbles Law, which one assumes by default, shows that it is not possible, one is not leaving open the consideration for the circumstances of the objects involved, and the possibility that Hubbles Law actually does not apply. You see Keith, by claiming Hubbles Law holds for the case of all galaxies, without question, you open yourself to the possibility of refutability of your claims and supposed facts through the existence of contradictory evidence, for which you either have no knowledge of or deny exists out of faith or selective ignorance. And before you start criticising any seeming garbage of the link provided, just remember that you criticise based on the assumption that the Big Bang theory could not possibly be wrong, when it could quite possibly be, as demonstrated. Furthermore, I find your response to the comment about www.cosmologystatement.org somewhat puzzling and dumbfounding. I do not see how you successful justify the judgement of that particular site based on one quoted excerpt! You did not even take into consideration the 200-plus signatories below the actual article itself! The sheer number of them (not to mention their credentials) is staggering, and I do not see how you can possibly justify your rational rejection or dismissal of those peoples opinions (200-plus-fold yours) on the basis of your small paragraph quotation. I would think by now you understand how blasphemous and sort-sighted your analysis of the whole site was. Whether it is through intellectual arrogance or what I do not know, but you missed the point of the site! You focused on the negatives rather than the positives; the positives being in relation to interdisciplinary scientific work (collaboration and interdisciplinary disclosure) and new discoveries made in order to determine the theory that is most reasonable for understanding the universe, as opposed to believing in a theory based on hear-say, or gossip, which, quite frankly, is unscientific. What I believe needs more attention is ridding science of old stereotypical values/principles that inhibit progress. For example, as I am sure it has been pointed out, electric currents are a primary cause of magnetism, and not a secondary effect; thus the Earths magnetosphere could not be generated without electric currents existing in space in relation to the Earths magneto dynamo, which sounds very reasonable to me. Furthermore, stream of charge particles in space are actually associated electrical currents. And of the facts you have on your main Big-Bang theory page, as you have indicated, they are the result of opinions more than reasonable application of the scientific method, particular given the way you emphasise that equations in numerical models can in any way perfectly replicate realistic conditions, which they cannot. And on Relativity theory: Quote: This is a theory of spacetime, offering a complete mathematical description of the universe. It seems that you do not recognise that the axioms of mathematics have no physical objects of reference in the universe. In other words, the entire structure of mathematics, while internally compatible and self-consistent, has no objects of reference in the physical world. And one of the biggest problems I see with the Big Bang theory is the violation of two inviolate principles: the no creation of nothing from something principle, and the cause and effect principle through the former! With regard to the idea of free will, it does not mean freedom from causality but rather freedom from compulsion or restraint. For example, an aeroplane may be able to fly, but the conditions under which it may fly are limited. You should also recognise that in making a choice, the choice itself is determined, as, in the end, you have to make one. This means the could-have-otherwise hypothesis cannot be; could-haves never happen, do they? I cannot see the Big Bang theory being accurate or even reasonable anymore, and the signatories from www.cosmologystatement.org seem to justly agree so too. I also do not see how the Big Bang Cosmology and Religion could have ever been separated, given the assumption of creation you have made. The above link it is shown that a highly red-shifted quasar sits in front of an opaque, low red-shift, active galaxy named NGC 7319. It is direct evidence that the red-shift of all quasars cannot be a measure of Hubble distance. The red-shift of quasars must be largely an intrinsic and inherited characteristic. And on the assumption of creation: As for the Big Bang theory itself, by definition, it does not include the origin. Any statement about whether or not a creator was necessary is moot speculation. Indeed, any speculation about the idea of creation in relation to the time before the Big Bang is, in fact, not covered by the Big Bang theory, by simply speculation. It is therefore inconsistent to say that the beginning of the universe occurred with a Big Bang, because, as pointed out, the origin is not included in the theory. It is also inconsistent to assert that the Big Bang theory implies that there was no before, and that time began with the Big Bang. It would be more accurate to say that the theory has nothing to say about the before state of affairs, as against implying that nothing existed before the Big Bang, of which nothing but moot speculation can be given, as you have pointed out Keith. I hope that this induces an air of widespread humility toward more alternative theories! As a final note: The theoretical explanations we are familiarised with fit into place for the facts as we have come to believe them. Part of the reason why the explanations actually work for these facts is because we have come to familiarise ourselves with the facts that work for the explanations we are familiarised with. That it is unfamiliar territory does not discount it as wrong just because we are unfamiliar it. It is simply unfamiliar. I hope this helps. |
| Posted By: Greg Posted On: Dec 21, 2004 Views: 724 | 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 -> |