Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory?

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]The 'spec' was space. Or at least the space we know. It is also time, or at least the time we know. There are real world examples of vacuum fluctuations. There are also real world examples of things popping into and otu of existence. See Quantum Mechanics. A particle travels from oen quntum to another quantum without traversing the space in between. You could also look up Quantum Engtaglement. That is when information from one entangled particle exactly matches the information of the other quantumly entangled particle no matter how many light years they are away from eachother. Meaning that as soon as you switch the particle from a down state to an up state the same exact thing happens in the other particle at the exact same moment. The information between the two particles is shared withouot tranversing the space in between. Does that seem plausible to you? Because it is known to happen. Cycli universes do not need to be caused by anything since they are, by their very nature, enternal.

killab2oo5

Also, what created that spec...or where did it come from? That seems to be the biggest flaw in the big bang theory...you can't just say there was a spec that contained it all when there's no kind of explanation for it.

To answer your question, no...it still doesn't seem plausible. :3 Unless the questions above can be answered.

Why is that a problem? As we gain more knowledge of the world around us we must fit our beliefs to accept those facts or reformulate them. That's not a problem just a better understanding of the reality we live in.

BumFluff122

Not constantly, though. Science tends to be very conservative. Major shifts in scientific perspective tend to require a pretty significant body of evidence and a compelling new framework that is usually a superset of the previous view (like the way relativistic formulae describing motion are almost equivalent to the Newtonian forms at speeds significantly below that of light). See: Thomas Juhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolution Of course, the rate of change does tend to be faster than that of religious beliefs; I just wanted to make it clear that it's not like every other week physicists come in to work and have to start over from scratch :)xaos

PS. The title of that book sounds interesting, never heard of it but I've taken note of it.

Hungry_bunny

Again, the Big Bang Theory DOES NOT ATTEMPT to explain the origin of the universe, only the very early conditions of it. I don't know a plainer way to say that. As for vacuum fluctuations, thusfar there is no explanation for why they occur, but they are known to occur and have been indirectly observed via phenomena such as the Kasimir effect (radiation pressure exerted byvirtual particles) and are the mechanism that produces Hawking radiation (radiation which bleeds mass from black holes). We may dig to a deeper understanding of vacuum fluctuations at some point (right now, they are basically just understood as quantum weirdness allowed by the uncertainty principle) but eventually there has to be a base point of "that's just the way things are."xaos

That seems to be the biggest flaw in the big bang theory...you can't just say there was a spec that contained it all when there's no kind of explanation for it.

killab2oo5

Yes, you can. That's the thing. Science operates much in the same way Sherlock Holmes operates: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Science simply goes from the evidence available to the conclusion that accounts for it all. That there are unanswered questions left behind by an explanation does not make that explanation false; if it is in accordance with all known evidence and if it makes predictions that turn out to be true, then it cannot simply be discounted outright without some falsifying evidence. If we had to wait until we can explain the entire universe before accepting any scientific explanation for something, then we'd be waiting an awful long time.

Basically, you don't know?

killab2oo5

[QUOTE="xaos"]Again, the Big Bang Theory DOES NOT ATTEMPT to explain the origin of the universe, only the very early conditions of it. I don't know a plainer way to say that. As for vacuum fluctuations, thusfar there is no explanation for why they occur, but they are known to occur and have been indirectly observed via phenomena such as the Kasimir effect (radiation pressure exerted byvirtual particles) and are the mechanism that produces Hawking radiation (radiation which bleeds mass from black holes). We may dig to a deeper understanding of vacuum fluctuations at some point (right now, they are basically just understood as quantum weirdness allowed by the uncertainty principle) but eventually there has to be a base point of "that's just the way things are."killab2oo5

[QUOTE="killab2oo5"]

That seems to be the biggest flaw in the big bang theory...you can't just say there was a spec that contained it all when there's no kind of explanation for it.

GabuEx

Yes, you can. That's the thing. Science operates much in the same way Sherlock Holmes operates: "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." Science simply goes from the evidence available to the conclusion that accounts for it all. That there are unanswered questions left behind by an explanation does not make that explanation false; if it is in accordance with all known evidence and if it makes predictions that turn out to be true, then it cannot simply be discounted outright without some falsifying evidence. If we had to wait until we can explain the entire universe before accepting any scientific explanation for something, then we'd be waiting an awful long time.

nope.

f that spec came from vaccum fluctuations then what caused them, and where did the cause of them come from? Same about the quantams, the different particles of the quantam entanglement (if they apply)? The cycli universes just, some day in "time", came out of no where at all?

Also, what created that spec...or where did it come from? That seems to be the biggest flaw in the big bang theory...you can't just say there was a spec that contained it all when there's no kind of explanation for it.

To answer your question, no...it still doesn't seem plausible. :3 Unless the questions above can be answered.

killab2oo5

Nothing wrong with it as long as people are accepting of the fact that what we believe in today could be proven wrong in 100 years. And that even if most of the scientific community accepts a theory, that doesn't always make it "fact". It's good to have a critical mind even when it comes to things like this, that's nothing that others should look down upon.

Hungry_bunny

I believe the Universe has always existed. I also believe that the universe is infinite with trillions and trillions of galaxies with intellegent beings.

I don't see why the whold God thing is so debated. I mean, a little over 2000 years ago there lived a man named Jesus Christ, the son of God. Isn't he enough proof for all of you.The Big Bang is just the scientific explanation behind God creating the universe.

Oh and to TheSoundSystem 2 posts above me. When we die all will be revealed. Heaven or Hell. That's it.

maverick_41

[QUOTE="xaos"]Again, the Big Bang Theory DOES NOT ATTEMPT to explain the origin of the universe, only the very early conditions of it. I don't know a plainer way to say that. As for vacuum fluctuations, thusfar there is no explanation for why they occur, but they are known to occur and have been indirectly observed via phenomena such as the Kasimir effect (radiation pressure exerted byvirtual particles) and are the mechanism that produces Hawking radiation (radiation which bleeds mass from black holes). We may dig to a deeper understanding of vacuum fluctuations at some point (right now, they are basically just understood as quantum weirdness allowed by the uncertainty principle) but eventually there has to be a base point of "that's just the way things are."killab2oo5

You are misunderstanding.

The big bang theory is only attempting to explain why the known universe is expanding and what possibly triggered the expansion. It doesnt try to explain what created the matter that is expanding, although there are theories that try to delve into it.

Edit: and I wouldnt think of it as a spec, this is because that spec could have very well been a 1000 light years across in every direction. If you compare that to what the universe is now then yeah, in a sense it is a spec. Im just saying that most people try to think of this "spec" as being as small as a dot made by a pencil, when it very well could have been much larger.

Yes. This physics class I am in has given me more evidence to it than anything else.

I don't see why the whold God thing is so debated. I mean, a little over 2000 years ago there lived a man named Jesus Christ, the son of God. Isn't he enough proof for all of you.The Big Bang is just the scientific explanation behind God creating the universe.

Oh and to TheSoundSystem 2 posts above me. When we die all will be revealed. Heaven or Hell. That's it.

maverick_41

[QUOTE="maverick_41"]

I don't see why the whold God thing is so debated. I mean, a little over 2000 years ago there lived a man named Jesus Christ, the son of God. Isn't he enough proof for all of you.The Big Bang is just the scientific explanation behind God creating the universe.

Oh and to TheSoundSystem 2 posts above me. When we die all will be revealed. Heaven or Hell. That's it.

foxhound_fox

Oh and only the Christian Bible. Lets forget the Jewish history, Muslim history, and all the rest of the people at that time who weren't Christian.

It's funny to see that only people who haven't a clue about physics say the theory makes no sense, is ridiculous, etc. And it makes sense, if one doesn't know anything about it, why should one understand it? Let's keep it at that and meanwhile learn more about our universe.

What conclusive and testable proof is there that Jesus even existed? Let alone was the son of God? Or that God even exists?

foxhound_fox

Well, there were a bunch of dudes in that area and time period named Jesus. I would not be surprised that one of them was from Nazareth.

Where did anything come from if there was no one to make it? Just Poof? Think about it.Whitefire78

Yes. This physics class I am in has given me more evidence to it than anything else.

Wasdie

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

Yes. This physics class I am in has given me more evidence to it than anything else.

Vandalvideo

[QUOTE="Hungry_bunny"]Yes, I believe that the Universe was created in one area and that it spread out very quickly in it's early days, that's pretty much the Big Bang Theory... the current Big Bang Theory is still flawed, incomplete and in need of "modification" though. The problem with "believing" in science is that you have to convert to another belief almost every day, scientific theories changes constantly while religious beliefs stay the same for a very long time.Wasdie

I do understand that it's still a theory, so it's supposed to be incomplete. :PHungry_bunny

One example: according to the current Big Bang model most of the matter in the Universe should be "cold dark matter", scientists have come up with a lot of different phenomenon that this would lead to, but unfortunately many of those phenomenon haven't been found or observed where they should have been. So that part of the theory is up for change or "refinement"...

I do understand that it's still a theory, so it's supposed to be incomplete. :P And as I mentioned earlier, I believe in the core of it. But when I see one of those specials on TV about the Big Bang theory I can't help to think that most of these simplified explanations they are giving might get proven wrong very soon.

Hungry_bunny

That could also just mean that there are many other undiscovered phenomena that are causing these things to not be located where we think that they should be.

So what you said afterwards about refinement is absolutely true, some theories will most likely have some truth to them, and we will take the more plausible parts of that theory and most likely prove it to be fact in the coming years while discarding other parts of that same theory for being false.

Im not ranting here, just thinking outloud.

[QUOTE="Whitefire78"]Makes no sense where Did the Two planets come from if no one made it o.oBumFluff122

or are you talking about the Big Bang? The big bang doesn't state that there are two planets. It states that eveerythign at one time was condensed into a singularity that began expanding.

When those would collide that would cause 2 different epicenters from where expansion would take place causeing utter chaos.

Think about what would happen if you simultaneously created 2 different ripples in a pond of water. Different waves from each ripple would collide with eachother and make it to where there are smaller waves created where other waves collided creating a situation where expansion would be happening starting from different areas at which multiple waves collided.

So if this were true we would be able to see expansion happening that starting in different areas of the universe, which I dont think we have seen so wouldnt that make this theory false?

Refurring to the picture above:

Does the middle dimension contain 1, 2, or 3 spacial dimensions?

1-d I would think to be impossible due to it being only a line. 2-d would be the type of area that would be like a square, and 3-d would make it to where it is a giant 3 dimensional space.

if it were a 3-d space then the 2 branes would be slowly combining all while compressing the middle 3-d spacial area. Once the 2 branes collided it would make that area compress so much that it could possibly create its own big bang along with the type of big bang that would be created when the 2 branes collided.

If it contained only 2 spacial dimensions then no compression would take place by the 2 branes merging because they are only moving through empty space. But that extra 2-d space would serve no purpose as it isnt doing anything.

[QUOTE="_en1gma_"] To which explanations are you speaking of?Vandalvideo

I do not believe in the Big Bang Theory, i believe God created everything. Please explain to me how this theory could be plausible considering that matter cannot be created from nothing (God being the consideration). Chemical reactions such as combustion require matter to occur. Nothing can explode if nothing is there.

Gsmith92

I do not believe in the Big Bang Theory, i believe God created everything. Please explain to me how this theory could be plausible considering that matter cannot be created from nothing (God being the consideration). Chemical reactions such as combustion require matter to occur. Nothing can explode if nothing is there.

Gsmith92

1. The Big Bang does not speculate that matter was created from nothing. It does not speculate at all on the origin of the infinitely dense singularity, only that it existed and that it and space then expanded.

2. The Big Bang was not a chemical explosion. It was a rapid expansion of space and matter.

Honestly, I really wish people would actually learn what the Big Bang theory actually says before criticizing it. :P

I beleive the big bang happened, but I think an infinite number of them has been happened before our time and an infinite will happen after.
Actually the more I think about it, the more any theory becomes absurd with our way of thinking.
Thats what I think, but what do I know.

although i dont quite under stand it i still believe in it Wings_008

No offense, but that's kind of as bad as the people who reject it while not understanding it, too. :P

The big bang theory was scientifically disproved at some point, so no I don't believe in it. http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_6_8_5.htmlPyro767

No, no it wasn't.

[QUOTE="Pyro767"]The big bang theory was scientifically disproved at some point, so no I don't believe in it. http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_6_8_5.htmlFlyingArmbar

No, no it wasn't.

[QUOTE="FlyingArmbar"]

[QUOTE="Pyro767"]The big bang theory was scientifically disproved at some point, so no I don't believe in it. http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_6_8_5.htmlPyro767

No, no it wasn't.

[QUOTE="Pyro767"][QUOTE="FlyingArmbar"]

No, no it wasn't.

mfp16

[QUOTE="FlyingArmbar"]

[QUOTE="Pyro767"]The big bang theory was scientifically disproved at some point, so no I don't believe in it. http://www.padrak.com/ine/NEN_6_8_5.htmlPyro767

No, no it wasn't.

All you've presented is an alternate idea that has been proposed, one which has significant problems. No, the Big Bang has not as of yet been disproved.

I do not believe in the Big Bang Theory, i believe God created everything. Please explain to me how this theory could be plausible considering that matter cannot be created from nothing (God being the consideration). Chemical reactions such as combustion require matter to occur. Nothing can explode if nothing is there.

Gsmith92

That has to be one of the biggest contradictions I have ever heard.

My bad, obviously i don't know specific details, but my post was mainly to get more information so my argument could be more informed. i only know what i've been told by those who believe it, but that doesn't answer my question, how did the matter get there and thus how does it prove there is no God. Also why do rapid expansions of space and matter never happen and what are the chances it expanded into life.Gsmith92

but that doesn't answer my question, how did the matter get there and thus how does it prove there is no God.Gsmith92

We don't know how it got there. Hypotheses on that are in development as we speak. Science works gradually, based on the evidence available.

It doesn't prove there is no God. It was never intended to do so. If you wish to speculate that the singularity was created by God, that's your prerogative.

Also why do rapid expansions of space and matter never happenGsmith92

Never happen? It's happening right now. Observations have shown that the expansion of the universe is even speeding up.

and what are the chances it expanded into life.Gsmith92

Pretty darn good, considering that life exists. :P