Select which on the poll are true.

Afterwards refer to http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/2006/07/big-bang-common-misconceptions.html to see if you're right!

"The Big Bang was an Explosion."

No.

"There's no evidence for the Big Bang."

This is trivially false.

Please read this:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2271377.stm

Oh...Maybe I should have read your WHOLE post...

Sorry to spoil your fun darksidZz. I thought we were in for more Bad Science!

ur sicens is dum

Yay! I chose correctly!

Now, where do I collect my prize money?

big bang was an expansion of space which couldn't expand because there was no space outside to expand to.

big bang was an expansion of space which couldn't expand because there was no space outside to expand to.

Seriously?

big bang was an expansion of space which couldn't expand because there was no space outside to expand to.

Why does it have to expand into space? Why can it not just expand into an aether of another dimension?

Why does it have to expand into space? Why can it not just expand into an aether of another dimension?

No. Bad.

"Space" was created in the big bang. To say "the universe has to expand in space" or "the universe has to expand into another dimension" implies that there is "space" or "dimension" outside of the universe. This you cannot know.

I was simply implying that there are other aethers in which to expand, not just what we call space.

I cant believe this, i wanted to vote but the poll is closed.

BB is crap and lame like Stephen Hawking.

BB is crap and lame like Stephen Hawking.

I'm sure you can do better

I though this was almost proven.
In the 90's they used a satelite to mearuse the ambient background radiation of space and it showed as aspected a steady decline.

Now this doesn't make it proven but since then I've heard of no major contention to the theory.

I though this was almost proven.
In the 90's they used a satelite to mearuse the ambient background radiation of space and it showed as aspected a steady decline.

Now this doesn't make it proven but since then I've heard of no major contention to the theory.

So what is this radiation reflect off from, specially since there was nothing for it to bounce on in the beginning. :shrug:

i don't quite comprehend what you mean.

I feel sad, this wasn't really a poll about the Big Bang itself, it was more about the article and whether you would think those things were true or not. When you guessed and read they weren't it was supposed to be shocking.

i don't quite comprehend what you mean.

The background radiation cant just wait in space.

AT 300,000 years, photons decoupled from matter. This is the source of the CMB radiation. Before this time, the photons were stuck bouncing off of electrons, called Compton Scattering. Think of shooting a ping pong ball (the photon) into a very dense forrest. The ping pong ball will not go very far before it hits another tree, then another, and so on. Now, if the trees were slowly spreading apart, eventually there would be enough room between the trees so that the collisions are very rare. This is essentially what happened in the early universe.

So in essence the radiation can "just wait around", although this comment is altogether meaningless.

Come on darksidZz---you should know noone ever reads the articles others link to.

There is something wrong with my house bulb, as soon as its switched off darkness quickly takes over instead of waiting for the photons to bounce here and there.

I have seen some of what is presented when you ask of evidence that the big bang occurred. But I have never seen any good evidence that proves it. Is there any?

Come on darksidZz---you should know noone ever reads the articles others link to.

I have read every link of yours in this thread.

I have read every link of yours in this thread.

Good. You're not an ordinary SciForums member. For what it's worth, I read links too.

I have seen some of what is presented when you ask of evidence that the big bang occurred. But I have never seen any good evidence that proves it. Is there any?

You mean other than the links that I posted?

Select which on the poll are true.

Afterwards refer to http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/2006/07/big-bang-common-misconceptions.html to see if you're right!

well, it is hard to explain to the minds which trapped in 4 dimensions, BB has happened in nothingness, not in space. since BB is the source and very reason of everything in existence, and vacuum space is one of them. as BB occurred , it created the vacumm space as it expanded. as i said, it is almost impossible to picture "nothingness" since as you try to comprehend, you ruin it unintentionally.
well said

There is something wrong with my house bulb, as soon as its switched off darkness quickly takes over instead of waiting for the photons to bounce here and there.
theoretical physics says that, if the light source in a room with walls completely reflective, even if the light source turns off, photons will bounce back and forth forever. in your room, they are absorbed by the elements
well said

Wow, that would be so neat! You could have umm? Everlasting light? Wouldn't that be like perpetual photons... impossible?

Wow, that would be so neat! You could have umm? Everlasting light? Wouldn't that be like perpetual photons... impossible?

No. If the collisions were perfectly ellastic (i.e. the walls were perfectly reflecting), then there is never any energy lost by the photons. So the photons would bounce in the room indefinitely. The problem with actually DOING this is that the walls would ostencibly be made of atoms. Atoms tend to absorb light, and the collisions will never be perfectly elastic---the neucleus of the incident atom recoils slightly due to the photon, and there is some energy loss.

But they dont absorb background radiation for 15 billion years, right ?

Not when the background radiation lives in mostly free space. THINK.

The background radiation cant just wait in space.

why not?

The Galaxyies are moving further appart there's a residual presence of radiation that is steadly declining. Forensics tell us there was shot fired. the decline of radiation tells us when. A projectile tells us from where the shot was fired.

Hey, so like even if ya could make perpetual light it would eventually hit you! Thus it would be absorbed into you :( I thought for a minute you could make a room forever bright!

Hey, so like even if ya could make perpetual light it would eventually hit you! Thus it would be absorbed into you :( I thought for a minute you could make a room forever bright!

These experts are saying that light in closed room should not fade away, since this happens most efficiently in the universe without any WALLs ;)

Hey, so like even if ya could make perpetual light it would eventually hit you! Thus it would be absorbed into you I thought for a minute you could make a room forever bright!

This is not possible because the atoms in the walls absorb the light.

These experts are saying that light in closed room should not fade away, since this happens most efficiently in the universe without any WALLs

Sigh.

I'm starting to realise what Singularity's "incomprehendibility" applies to.... sometime he's verging on incomprehensibility.

I'm starting to realise what Singularity's "incomprehendibility" applies to.... sometime he's verging on incomprehensibility.

Will u stop stalking me. U sexually deprived sticky bug.

Will u stop stalking me.
Short answer - no. Not as long as you keep posting inane drivel. But "stalking"? It is to laugh. Your ego is as inflated as your knowledge of science is small.
U sexually deprived sticky bug.
Ouch - quite patently the most most wounding epithet ever applied on SF. (Seriously dude, you got to learn some better insults, or at least more accurate - the only factual thing that could apply to me in that was "u")