Big Bang Theory - Page 2

March 27, 2007, 5:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stayscrisp

since the universe is so big it only makes sense that it is expanding, and if it is expanding then it makes sense that it started at one point! then again it could also always have been there, the thing that noone will ever be able to explain is wat was there before the big bang. If you define the universe as everything that exists then it couldnt have started from a big bang because there had to be something existing before it. I guess its incomprehensible to think of there being nothing at all. There is proof i guess but it isnt an indisputable fact, just the same as there being no god isnt an indisputable fact! personally i believe there is a god but he isnt watching down on us, why would god create the universe just to sit outside it, i believe god exists all around us in nature, and the big bang was god! again disputable but hey life sucks without a bit of dispute!
soz for rant but im done

This universe came from the universe before it, when that one had been collapsed down into a singularity.

As for why Jehovah sits outside of your universe and looks down upon it, why don't you ask him? If you speak loudly enough and often enough, perhaps he'll hear you and decide to answer. I wouldn't hold my breath though. If you ask me nicely enough, I WILL in fact give you an answer, in exchange for your immortal soul.

God was certainly not the Big Bang, though he had something to do with it.

March 27, 2007, 3:58 PM

It might be more important to ask how many of you actually do understand how the big bang works. Perhaps a lot of you don't believe in it (not that you should because it's a scientific theory) because you don't understand it.

March 28, 2007, 7:14 PM

I believe that the Big Bang happened as there is quite a bit of evidence to support the theory. It is also a possibility that the Universe will at some point come crashing back together, in a so called "Big Crush".

March 28, 2007, 9:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It might be more important to ask how many of you actually do understand how the big bang works. Perhaps a lot of you don't believe in it (not that you should because it's a scientific theory) because you don't understand it.

Um... actually, when you're in the scientific community, theory holds a lot more weight than it does when you talk of a theory in layman's terms. The Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory have just as much evidence as the Laws of Thermodynamics. I don't know why they changed the words around, but in the world of science today, Theory is the same as yesteryear's Law. Thus if something is a scientific theory (not a layman's theory, though), you'd do well to accept it, as it has more evidence for it than any one person can know.

March 29, 2007, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aralith

Um... actually, when you're in the scientific community, theory holds a lot more weight than it does when you talk of a theory in layman's terms. The Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory have just as much evidence as the Laws of Thermodynamics. I don't know why they changed the words around, but in the world of science today, Theory is the same as yesteryear's Law. Thus if something is a scientific theory (not a layman's theory, though), you'd do well to accept it, as it has more evidence for it than any one person can know.

No. You would not do well to accept it. There were once scientific theories that the world was flat and that the entire universe revolved around the Earth. Did people do well to accept these scientific theories?

March 29, 2007, 3:51 PM

In what ways were they scientific? Real science did not exist back then, so you cannot call them scientific theories. They can't show us any real calculations they had back then that might explain how the Earth was flat; they just assumed it was because a book told them it was.

Even so, science could admit errors if it made any. But it's usually not something like the world is flat; now it's not and we're wrong. It's more like we discover classical mechanics, then discover quantum mechanics later, but classical mechanics isn't absolutely wrong or disproven; just modified.

But people only accept things on the basis that they can understand it or they can imagine it happening. It doesn't have much to do with the big bang being a scientific theory; I agree that it is, and deserves more credit than a casually defined theory, but most people don't understand the implications of a scientific theory, nor do they understand enough about the big bang to accept it. Remember, just because a scientific theory may have lots of evidence for it doesn't mean you are required to believe in it. This is what separates science from religion (besides the self correcting part); you are not required to believe in science, but belief is required in religion.

March 29, 2007, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

In what ways were they scientific? Real science did not exist back then, so you cannot call them scientific theories. They can't show us any real calculations they had back then that might explain how the Earth was flat; they just assumed it was because a book told them it was.

Even so, science could admit errors if it made any. But it's usually not something like the world is flat; now it's not and we're wrong. It's more like we discover classical mechanics, then discover quantum mechanics later, but classical mechanics isn't absolutely wrong or disproven; just modified.

But people only accept things on the basis that they can understand it or they can imagine it happening. It doesn't have much to do with the big bang being a scientific theory; I agree that it is, and deserves more credit than a casually defined theory, but most people don't understand the implications of a scientific theory, nor do they understand enough about the big bang to accept it. Remember, just because a scientific theory may have lots of evidence for it doesn't mean you are required to believe in it. This is what separates science from religion (besides the self correcting part); you are not required to believe in science, but belief is required in religion.

That was what was considered science at the time. In 300 years from now, you may find that all of your current scientific theories were grossly inaccurate, just as inaccurate as saying the world was flat or the sun revolved around the earth. You may also find that what you call "real" science is in fact a subject of much ridicule and derision, the petty beliefs of a primitive society. Already quantum physics and general relativity both show flaws, in quantum physics the collapse of the so called state vector, and in general relativity, its inability to account for the movements and actions of smaller masses. And that brings us to the current "unified" theory, string theory.

String theory, a very scientific theory, can be proven mathematically. However, (and be sure to read the fine print) IT REQUIRES THE BELIEF IN 11 SPATIAL DIMENSIONS IN ORDER FOR IT TO WORK. It also gets into all kinds of shakey ground involving alternate universes, parallell galaxies, wormholes, and alien abductions.

Science is nothing more than the current glorified breed of religion. And it most certainly requires belief, moreso than religion even, because every theorem and proof eventually falls back on postulates that cannot be proven true or false, and either you believe the postulate to be true, and theorem holds, or you don't, and it doesn't.

March 30, 2007, 4:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucifer Morningstar

That was what was considered science at the time. In 300 years from now, you may find that all of your current scientific theories were grossly inaccurate, just as inaccurate as saying the world was flat or the sun revolved around the earth. You may also find that what you call "real" science is in fact a subject of much ridicule and derision, the petty beliefs of a primitive society. Already quantum physics and general relativity both show flaws, in quantum physics the collapse of the so called state vector, and in general relativity, its inability to account for the movements and actions of smaller masses. And that brings us to the current "unified" theory, string theory.

It wouldn't be considered science if they believed the Earth was flat because the book told them to. Historically, real science did not exist back then. The term didn't even exist. Maybe there was philosophy, but they didn't call it science then. Furthermore, you are making a prediction that our scientific theories will be inaccurate 300 years ago, but if you must make that assertion, then prove it. Otherwise, you have no basis for claiming that our theories will become inaccurate because it is just as viable as them not being inaccurate 300 years from now. Remember, this is not the bible where scientists make up statements and pretend they are right; there were meaningful observations that showed them that such was the case. As for quantum theory, that's not true at all. Even if we couldn't account for the "smallest" masses because they weren't measurable, they still fit within the theory because there is no contradiction found. Furthermore, small amounts of masses or energy are fluctuations allowed within quantum mechanics.

Quote:

String theory, a very scientific theory, can be proven mathematically. However, (and be sure to read the fine print) IT REQUIRES THE BELIEF IN 11 SPATIAL DIMENSIONS IN ORDER FOR IT TO WORK. It also gets into all kinds of shakey ground involving alternate universes, parallell galaxies, wormholes, and alien abductions.

If it requires belief, then it's not science. What you probably mean to say is that it requires the existence of spatial dimensions in order to work, and that this is a viable hypothesis that anyone might be encouraged to test. If you just required belief in order for it to work, then you would not be required on some level to show that spatial dimensions exist. But it seems you're wrong in saying that string theory is a scientific theory anyways, because much of the scientific community disagrees over it, so you're arguing for a strawman here.

Quote:

Science is nothing more than the current glorified breed of religion. And it most certainly requires belief, moreso than religion even, because every theorem and proof eventually falls back on postulates that cannot be proven true or false, and either you believe the postulate to be true, and theorem holds, or you don't, and it doesn't.

If you hold to the belief that string theory in some way represents science, then you might be lead to believe that, but science differs greatly from religion. Maybe I should list some differences? Science admits when it is wrong; it is self correcting. Thus science is said to also be falsifiable. Religion never admits it's wrong. It thinks it's always right, even though it may not be in accordance with reality. Science does not require belief. Science uses evidences and disproving as a means of showing how or why we have particular explanations. Religion has no means of showing how or why it gives its particular explanations, only that you're required to believe in it. Science is an objective study of things that can be observed. Religion is subjective and deals with things that cannot be observed, which could be said to not exist at all.

Maybe I should elaborate on the part of science not requiring beliefs, and that is that there are lots of hypotheses, theories and laws that have been discovered in science. However, you are not required to believe in them. If you were, then no scientist would be encouraged to challenge them. These theories are being constantly challenged, but when they pass the tests with flying colors, we have no choice but to accept it because it was not disproven. A theory (theorems are a part of math, not science) is never considered true or false because it is only shown to be true to a particular probability. Thus it is never said to be 100% true or 0% true; just somewhere in between. The basis of the theory being true or false does not rely on how much you believe in it, but of objective evidence and test results that indicate how accurate your hypothesis is. You're allowed to believe or not believe what the results indicate, and it would not change anything because they are independent from what you believe.

March 31, 2007, 11:27 PM

Umph, Big Band erhh I mean Bang, well I really don’t believe in that theory, because there is not real evidence of that (how could there be), they said that the universe expanding, thus it most to have been all together at some point and for some reason it exploded and shit, and that then one day, it will start to crunch and collapse and maybe explode again.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
The problem with this theory, is that it tries to explain how the universe began, and scientist can’t not even decide what happened before the big bang, what all matter was created in one second and then exploded? according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang the most interesting events happen during and after the first 3 seconds of the big bang, you know, neutrons and electrons appear, the universe begin to take shape, I don’t really understand how they have calculate all this.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p> </o:p>
But hey I wasn´t there anyway, I can´t not say that the big bang is false either <o:p></o:p>