Poll: The Big bang theory, Do you think its true?

[Pimppeter2]

No, you should recognise you do not have enough knowledge in the area to make a judgement, and therefore have no place making such claims as "it has to many flaws and doesn't quite make sense" rather than "I don't understand it enough make sense of it."

Although I would also argue that scientists have proven themselves enough times throughout history that you can justifiably trust them without fully understanding why they claim something to be true. But that's a different argument.

Let's not forget who didn't believed that the earth rotated around the sun untill like 300 years ago.

Yea, Scientists can be wrong. Tommorow they could disprove the Big Bang theory and replace it with another

So is "I do not believe in the Big Bang because to the best of my knowledge it is flawed and leaves me with too much doubt. But I believe that it is a step in the right direction" better for you?

All I'm saying is that I don't blindly fallow anyone, because all humans can make mistakes.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

No I didn't. Not even a little bit. What I am saying is that trying to unravel something as vast and complex as everything in the universe can't be done with a few telescopes and a bit of superglue. Understand?

Then, just as the monkey does, we grow, and evolve, and eventually build the Boeing. Hence, if there is a god, we will become gods. Otherwise we'll become near gods.

Humans are not gods and never will be. If there is such a thing as god (which I doubt, but you never know), then I doubt its origins and composition are anything like that of life in the material universe we live in.

That said, this thread is about the Big Bang, which has nothing to do with theology. So please, leave the sandwich board at home.

Ever seen one of these quantum fluctuations? Got any proof? Any evidence? If it is intangible, it doesn't exist.

I was saying that god is intangible. And really. Quantum fluctuation are a result of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It's been observed. A lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

Ohh sure. If it's on wikipedia (made by people who, much like a lot of the people in this thread, think they know much but know very little) then it must be true. /sarcasm

Dude, there are all kinds of these crazy theories flying around right now. From quantum to dark matter, its all great in theoretical physics. It is touching that the scientists involved have tried to disburse this information to the public, and tragic that the public think all of this is somehow fact. Scientists don't have these answers, they are still looking. No, don't go rushing to wikipedia, stay here for a sec, I will clean up a few big misconceptions.

The Big Bang theory is a theoretical model of how the universe evolved from its very earliest begining. It starts from probably about 0.01 yocto seconds after the creation of the universe. It does not, however deal with the creation of the universe itself. The Big Bang theory has literally nothing to say about that event. It also does not deal directly with the death of the universe. It does, however, offer conjectural theories based upon the model.

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle has nothing to do with quantum fluctuations, but the uncertainty of quantum particles when measured or when observed. It doesn't state anywhere that the universe is unpredictable, merely that we alter the universe when we observe it. It is also still just a theory, and not a theory of anything 'solid', but simply a model of some pretty bizarre mathematics. Those "fluctuations" are not random occurences, but are actual events that occur at the quantum level.

 

[CWestfall]

If you believe in a God or something, that's great for you. I admire your faith. That said, I don't want to start a bunch of fights, so if you are Creationist and particularly opinionated, stop reading... Now.

Moving along. To address a topic brought up in the OP, many believe the universe isn't expanding fast enough to escape the attraction of the gravity between all the matter in the universe. Therefore, it will all come together in a singularity again in an event called the "Big Crunch". Counter-theories suggest that it is indeed travelling fast enough to hit a sort of "escape velocity" (Like the space shuttle needs to escape Earth's gravity.) where it can just keep on expanding infinitely.

Mind you that's based on what we know now. We still don't know what makes up a lot of the universe.

 

[Maze1125]

Let's not forget who believed that the earth rotated around the sun untill like 300 years ago.

Err... just so you know, the Earth does rotate around the Sun.

Tommorow they could disprove the Big Bang theory and replace it with another

No, they couldn't.
I've just been discussing this with another poster.

So is "I do not believe in the Big Bang because to the best of my knowledge it is flawed and leaves me with too much doubt. But I believe that it is a step in the right direction" better for you?

Barely.
It suggests you know enough to judge that there might be flaws or not. The theory that leads to the Big Bang is very very very complex and, from what I can tell, you don't know any of it.

Saying "to the best of my knowledge the Big Bang is flawed" is like if I said to you "I believe in Zarginmest" and you responded with "The the best of my knowledge Zarginmest is flawed." It's a meaningless claim, you don't have any knowledge about Zarginmest to conclude anything about it, you can't conclude it's flawed and you can't conclude it's not.

All I'm saying is that I don't blindly fallow anyone, because all humans can make mistakes.

Trusting a group of people who have a proven track record isn't blind faith.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Let's not forget who believed that the earth rotated around the sun untill like 300 years ago.

Err... just so you know, the Earth does rotate around the Sun.

My bad, didn't but a didn't between who and believe

Tommorow they could disprove the Big Bang theory and replace it with another

No, they couldn't.
I've just been discussing this with another poster.

They could disprove part of it, or add a new idea to it

So is "I do not believe in the Big Bang because to the best of my knowledge it is flawed and leaves me with too much doubt. But I believe that it is a step in the right direction" better for you?

Barely.
It suggests you know enough to judge that there might be flaws or not. The theory that leads to the Big Bang is very very very complex and, from what I can tell, you don't know any of it.

I haven't said a word about the theory, or parts that I find wrong. So there's no way that you can think that I know nothing about it. You assumed, and thats a dick move

Saying "to the best of my knowledge the Big Bang is flawed" is like if I said to you "I believe in Zarginmest" and you responded with "The the best of my knowledge Zarginmest is flawed." It's a meaningless claim, you don't have any knowledge about Zarginmest to conclude anything about it, you can't conclude it's flawed and you can't conclude it's not.

I have repeatedly said that I have read up on the subject. Points for it and against it, and I think that in its current state I do not believe that everything it says is true. I also mention that it is a step in the right direction, which means that it is not all flawed, just parts of it

All I'm saying is that I don't blindly fallow anyone, because all humans can make mistakes.

Trusting a group of people who have a proven track record isn't blind faith.

Thats about as good of an argument as "God moves in mysterious ways". They've been right a couple of times so that must mean everything they say is true?

The bottom line is. To the best of my knowledge, to the extent which I have read upon the subject, I do not agree with certain parts of the theory, therefore I do not believe its entirely correct.

 

[shotgunbob]

Saying there was something around before the big bang isn't logical because there cant be anything. Saying that nothing exploded breaks the laws of physics and saying that god created it brings the question of what created god

Infinite Paradox

/thread

 

[AWC Viper]

it seem plausable more so than

Spoiler: do not read if easily offended

a magical being creating everything from nothing in 7 days

 

[Maze1125]

I haven't said a word about the theory, or parts that I find wrong. So there's no way that you can think that I know nothing about it. You assumed, and thats a dick move

I didn't assume, I clearly left room for being wrong.
And just because you've never explicitly said what you know doesn't mean I can't infer with some degree of accuracy.

But hey, prove me wrong, tell me what non-layman understanding you have of the theory.

I have repeatedly said that I have read up on the subject. Points for it and against it, and I think that in its current state I do not believe that everything it says is true. I also mention that it is a step in the right direction, which means that it is not all flawed, just parts of it

If all you've read is books written in layman's terms then you haven't read up on it, at all.

Thats about as good of an argument as "God moves in mysterious ways". They've been right a couple of times so that must mean everything they say is true?

Science has consistently produced the most accurate view of reality throughout history. That's hardly the same thing as "Being right a couple of times."

If you don't trust science, then why do you trust any machines you have in your home?

 

[Daveman]

Now, since matter is affected by gravity does that mean energy is also affected by gravity? And does gravity stop having an effect after a certain distance?(im pretty sure it doesnt but ive never really asked...)

I don't think you can have energy without mass (E=MC^2 biatch, or something along those lines). As light is effected by gravity and that is the nearest thing we have to pure energy (I think) then yes, they're effected the same. also, yeah, just as with any sort of attraction (gravity, electromagnetism... whatnot) it goes on forever but get's infinitely small. Also, could you add a "no fucking clue" option in the poll?

it seem plausable more so than a magical being creating everything from nothing in 7 days

as opposed to absolutely nothing creating everything instantly. don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist, but it seems like a pretty insubstantial argument unless you back it up.

 

[Pimppeter2]

I didn't assume, I clearly left room for being wrong.
And just because you've never explicitly said what you know doesn't mean I can't infer with some degree of accuracy.

But hey, prove me wrong, tell me what non-layman understanding you have of the theory.

If all you've read is books written in layman's terms then you haven't read up on it, at all.

So basically, you're asking me to believe something, even though I do not understand it? That my friend, is called faith.

Science has consistently produced the most accurate view of reality throughout history. That's hardly the same thing as "Being right a couple of times."

If you don't trust science, then why do you trust any machines you have in your home?

Again, I have never said I distrust Science. All I have said is that it has been wrong before, and will be wrong in the future. I believe in the Theory of Evolution, because it makes sense to me, to the extent on which I have read up on that topic. However, I do not believe that the Big Bang Theory is all correct. Again to the extent of which I have learned about it. Now, if someone came up to me and explained the theory to me in a way that squashed all my doubts, then I would accept it.

Saying that I distrust Science because I do not believe in something it has not (yet) PROVEN is a bad argument. If Scientist were to prove the Theory Tommorow, then yea, I would accept it

 

[Um...TE]

I doubt that there was nothing before the Big Bang, because that breaks physical law.

There is no time "before" the Big Bang. The Big Bang is Time Zero. All matter has always existed, but there is a definite beginning to existence.

Also, the universe is not infinite in size (or volume). It is finite. There's not empty space out there. Space, itself, is expanding with the universe.

 

[Syntax Error]

Well...
I doubt that there was nothing before the Big Bang, because that breaks physical law. There's a better theory I've heard which states that the universe goes in cycles: Everything is pulled into singularities which eventually merge, & electrostatic repulsion balances out the gravity & you get a Big Bang. Rinse & repeat.

Which leaves the question about what exactly prompted this cycle. Kinda like asking a Christian "If God created everything, then who (or what) created God, then?".

Well, if you think about it non-linearly, it doesn't have to have begun. Just is, was & always will be.

You know, all debates between science and religion will end if people just accepted what you said.

 

[Syntax Error]

You know, all debates between science and religion will end if people just accepted what you said.

Isn't that the case for everything, though?
If everyone just accepted that the universe was created in seven days four-thousand years ago, there'd be no debating either.

The world needs less hating and more agreeing. Cheers.

 

[mykalwane]

Well the thing I like about the Big Bang theory is that it still doesn't explain how things became stuff. It still says out of nothing something came which agrees with the whole a deity could create something. So in a way the Big Bang theory gives evidence to god, just as string theory gives proof that out of a voice something was created.

No it don't... if the Big Bang created the universe and everything known to us within it today..
Where does God come into play? And aren't climate changes and changing the form of matter, the reason for life on earth and therefore also an effect of the big bang?

sorry for ranting but i just hate that people always have to fit an old white-beard Prick into everything related to the creation of the universe..

...it's baffling enough without him.

Well climate changes has been tossed around enough by multiple people to mean multiple things so not sure what you mean by that.

Now the changing of matter would be vibrating stings that are the atoms of atoms creates the atoms themselves. From that the atoms become such and such. That is the idea behind Sting theory [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/]. I am not saying that there is one god or multiple gods. Just gives evidence for a god. I may be wrong, but I have seen it as proof that science and religion are two parts of understanding the world. Science being the explaining of the things we can explain with religion to explain the things we can't. Now I am not a scientist, I am just coming from a novice point. Then again my thoughts on God started with the movie Oh God! [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076489/] and went on to studying other religions. Just a noivce so I may be wrong, just my opinion on the matter.

okay i don't want to offend your beliefs but whats wrong with the unexplained actually being
unexplained?

that's my point of view. It means study harder and learn more to get the amount of unexplained getting smaller...no need to bring religion in.

But to not take this any further, i respect your views. And i don't feel in the position to tell you anything about what to think...

I agree with you on that, that is what science is for. Just as far as I have seen that if you are going to do that with the big bang theory is that it says something came out of nothing. Bang Theory states everything was a giant ball of everything till it exploded outwards, by that random combination of stuff we get everything that is about. I always keep wondering is where did that come from. Every time I have asked that I get in a loop of Big Bang being it. Never get an answer to that question. There is more to this world, then mare mortals can dream of. So there has to be something to explain that unexplainable. So if science can't explain it, so it must be till science can prove to explain it.

So that puts forth the if then statement that if science can explain it it must be of science then if not must be of religion. This may be the religion of Psychology or Christianity, but a religion of some belief must explain it. It is why someone can think it is psychosomatic and another a miracle about the same thing.

Now I may be using belief a bit broad by saying it is something that you believe in, which may be getting a bit confusing since science is there religion. If that is the case I am sorry for the confusion. The idea is not one or the other are alone, but parts of explaining the world around us. We may be right, we may be wrong on this. For all we know the Greeks had it right, but then again eternity might only be experience by matter since matter isn't created or destroyed. Hell the whole galaxy/universe average for life is zero. The math is right, but we still are about. So there has to be something your belief explains when the evidence fails.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

Question
Now, since matter is affected by gravity does that mean energy is also affected by gravity? And does gravity stop having an effect after a certain distance?(im pretty sure it doesnt but ive never really asked...)

You misunderstand what energy is. Energy is a quantization of the motion of matter and the properties of the electronic orbitals; gravity compared to the electromagnetic force is so weak that it is ignored when talking about electrons. Electromagnetic waves (considered an 'energy') are 'affected' by mass in the change in motion by a mass's gravitational field producing a curvature in space-time, which the waves follow.

Anywho, now since our universe is filled with matter and all and its all attracting each other....it makes since it will all eventually come together right? Now all that matter and energy coming together can only mean one thing.

Gravity acts at a distance that travels at the speed of ligh, as far as anybody has observed. The expansion of the universe may or may not stop, and this is a continuing area of research because the math could turn out that the expansion is accelerating too fast for gravity to reverse.

 

[r0qu3]

Well the thing I like about the Big Bang theory is that it still doesn't explain how things became stuff. It still says out of nothing something came which agrees with the whole a deity could create something. So in a way the Big Bang theory gives evidence to god, just as string theory gives proof that out of a voice something was created.

No it don't... if the Big Bang created the universe and everything known to us within it today..
Where does God come into play? And aren't climate changes and changing the form of matter, the reason for life on earth and therefore also an effect of the big bang?

sorry for ranting but i just hate that people always have to fit an old white-beard Prick into everything related to the creation of the universe..

...it's baffling enough without him.

Well climate changes has been tossed around enough by multiple people to mean multiple things so not sure what you mean by that.

Now the changing of matter would be vibrating stings that are the atoms of atoms creates the atoms themselves. From that the atoms become such and such. That is the idea behind Sting theory [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/]. I am not saying that there is one god or multiple gods. Just gives evidence for a god. I may be wrong, but I have seen it as proof that science and religion are two parts of understanding the world. Science being the explaining of the things we can explain with religion to explain the things we can't. Now I am not a scientist, I am just coming from a novice point. Then again my thoughts on God started with the movie Oh God! [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076489/] and went on to studying other religions. Just a noivce so I may be wrong, just my opinion on the matter.

okay i don't want to offend your beliefs but whats wrong with the unexplained actually being
unexplained?

that's my point of view. It means study harder and learn more to get the amount of unexplained getting smaller...no need to bring religion in.

But to not take this any further, i respect your views. And i don't feel in the position to tell you anything about what to think...

I agree with you on that, that is what science is for. Just as far as I have seen that if you are going to do that with the big bang theory is that it says something came out of nothing. Bang Theory states everything was a giant ball of everything till it exploded outwards, by that random combination of stuff we get everything that is about. I always keep wondering is where did that come from. Every time I have asked that I get in a loop of Big Bang being it. Never get an answer to that question. There is more to this world, then mare mortals can dream of. So there has to be something to explain that unexplainable. So if science can't explain it, so it must be till science can prove to explain it.

So that puts forth the if then statement that if science can explain it it must be of science then if not must be of religion. This may be the religion of Psychology or Christianity, but a religion of some belief must explain it. It is why someone can think it is psychosomatic and another a miracle about the same thing.

Now I may be using belief a bit broad by saying it is something that you believe in, which may be getting a bit confusing since science is there religion. If that is the case I am sorry for the confusion. The idea is not one or the other are alone, but parts of explaining the world around us. We may be right, we may be wrong on this. For all we know the Greeks had it right, but then again eternity might only be experience by matter since matter isn't created or destroyed. Hell the whole galaxy/universe average for life is zero. The math is right, but we still are about. So there has to be something your belief explains when the evidence fails.

Yeah i get what you mean... turned a little philosphical hm.

But thanks for making your point clear, i think i made myself clear too.


Keep it up, r0qu3

 

[Maze1125]

So basically, you're asking me to believe something, even though I do not understand it?

No, I am not.
I am asking you to recognise that you don't understand the actual theory at all.
And therefore that you have no place commenting one way or the other.

As I said before, whether or not you should trust and believe in something just because it is scientific consensus is an entirely different discussion.

That my friend, is called faith.

Not necessarily, almost every person has a somewhat different definition of "faith".
And, depending on what definition you're using, it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Saying that I distrust Science because I do not believe in something it has not (yet) PROVEN is a bad argument. If Scientist were to prove the Theory Tommorow, then yea, I would accept it

Let me ask you something. A man is in court charged with rape, he has not been identified by a line up and his girlfriend has provided an alibi, but his DNA matches the semen found. Do you believe he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt?

(Yes it has a point so please bear with me.)