big bang "pillars" of proof

is it not illogical to believe in something without solid proof? there is no room for theory and faith right, because you cant believe in god because its not proven its only a non scientific theory and belief right?


prove to me that the universe has not always existed at half its current size and at some point in time it started to expand, but was never at a singular point.


you cannot prove it with theory, only solid hard evidence "ofcourse".

peace.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you have four marbles in your hand it would be difficult to give a proof of any thing other, now let some one take two away out of your sight, can
you prove four marbles still exist?
Maybe not a good analogy but (prove) is ambiguous if not impossible with
cosmology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

James R,

I once backed into a light pole in a parking lot, James R. I didn't see it, but damn, it was sure there. It didn't make a peep until I hit it either.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Dude, go read some Cosmology web sites, there's too much for us to explain here. Start with 'Cosmic Microwave Background' in Google, and you see that it's 'temperature' matches with the predicted value from a big bang. Also google COBE, and see that the background is not totally uniform, which gives an indication as to why discrete matter formed.

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

:bagpuss:

 

What is there to prove?

If a tree falls down in the woods and no one is around to hear it- does it make a sound?

I would say -----YES.

 

read the entire page. and i have also read many other articles on and off the web about this theory.


but i come to the same conclusion that i came to a year or 2 back, so much brickwork is layed upon this foundation, and it might not be true.

i thought science was about hard facts not placing our eggs in a single basket because its the best we can come up with for the time. scientists are always debunking ideas because it has no solid proof to back it up and they make the same mistakes, but because a scientific theory is layed down it somehow gets twisted into a type of fact when in fact it is not,


too many people work under the impression that the theory is fact and so inturn they base more theory ontop of the old theory, untill a succession of theories are strung together all heading down the same path, and we believe it is called progression, but it is not true progress unless we have solid fact to back each claim up each step of the way.


we never learn its the same thing in every generation from past to present, we behold greater technology than the previous generation and then begin to think we know it all, look what happened to all of the scientific theories from the past right up untill the last centuary. they all get alughed at. i fear that in 500 years time that generation will look back at us and laugh at our expense also,


but the people of this generation know best ofcourse because we are state of the art right. i think we should reconsider bieng open to other ideas and not just assume that we hold the answer because our current theory is the best we have come up with so far. i can name many flaws in the big bang theory as a whole and you guys know its true. im not saying it wasnt the truth, but i am saying it might not have been the truth.


we currently believe in a single 'uni'verse, that started at a singular point and started expanding and now we have what we have today, (thats what it boils down to without the mumbo jumbo isnt it)

but a multiverse with an underlying infinite energy structure, wich this universe is a part of could just as well be the truth, scientific logic actualy rules out something coming from nothing, so by its own logic the theory is nulified, and people dont seem to grasp this.


it takes a scientist with a scientific theory and a reputation to lead the mass thought, a regular guy wont get through to anybody will he ofcourse not. the world isnt flat and the earth is not the center of the universe. remember past mistakes or we are doomed to repeat them,

keep an open mind it is far more logical than assuming you are right about something without actual evidence, just because it seems the "best idea based on a few factors".


for all you know the science that governs the creation of pre universal history is completely different to the science and physics that we know of, dont be so pompus.


peace.

 

quote from bigbangtheory.com


Big Bang Theory - The Premise
The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.


what a crock of shit, seriously you guys hold real belief around this idea, its totaly illogical. and i dont care if i sound like a nut for not believing what i am told.


peace.

 

Dude, you only think it's a crock of shit because you don't understand it.

Now, go read some more, it's the only way you will get educated. I'm not going to spend my time teaching you, when you should have payed attention in science class. All I can say is, if you doubt this theory, and don't understand the supporting evidence, you were let down by your school.

 

i got bad test scores in science class for offering a multiverse theory and saying i dont agree witht he big bang theory, a question was asked "how was the universe created" i answered "i dont know but i have a few theorys one of those is a multiverse with an underlay of infinite energy" and i went on to explain this.


the teacher said no the big bang created the universe so you are wrong, im not bieng fed the food of ignorant people. i do understand the premise, but i dont agree with it, is that so hard to grasp.


i dont think its true i am oppose to it, regardless of how it makes me look i dont care, stop getting hissy because i am contesting your scientific foundations. show me some solid facts and real evidence and i will consider changing my views to 100% believing it.


did you not read my posts? all you see was insolence because i dont agree? the big bang theory actualy states that something came from nothing, strip away alll of the psychobabble and thats what you have, something from nothing, and that is illogical.

some people go one further trying to explain that a singular point existed for an unknown amount of time, but there is no proof of this. you only have your 3 pillars of theory to back up the claims and that my friend is not good enough as to call it evidence.


peace.

 

quote from bigbangtheory.com


"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know."



do you people actualy understand what this is saying? because i 100% do and i do not agree with it, if it defies physics then what the hell? where is the evidence and logic in basing it on scientific physics.


the key statement "we dont know, we dont know" exactly so stop telling me that you do know and that my theorys are 100% wrong,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

peace.

 

http://www.big-bang-theory.com/


theory means theory, just because its a scientific theory does not make it proof, dont get me started with black hole physics either because you cannot even justify them existing let alone know the actual function of them,

yes they might exist they might not, yes they might do what it states they do they might not, just like all theory we dotn know otherwise it wouldent be a theory, scientifc or not it would be hard evidence and fact.


why isnt an apple tree called an apple tree theory? because its a freakin apple tree fact thats why

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

peace.

 

Chi, you clearly DON'T understand it, or you wouldn't disagree with it. No, go read some science books.

 

................................................... i seriously cant believe you just said that. if i understood it i wouldent disagree with it?


i do understand it and i do not agree with it, does that boggle your mind or something? it does not compute system overload?

maybe you should read the big bang theory some more,

peace

 

Moderator note: Post deleted because it consisted of nothing but a long cut-and-paste from another site.

In future, please post a link. Do not spam sciforums.

Thankyou!

 

By what basis are you judging this? Just because it doesn't make sense to you?

 

if the big bang theory is correct then there must have been other factors at play outside of this universe, witch contradicts the word universe, explaining that there is more to exisitence than the current universe, wich means that the creation of this universe was not the creation of everything and universe means all in existence.


so it is flawed.

peace.

 

for many reasons that i have already stated and people dont seem to be reading,


what i am asking for is actual hard evidence, and it cannot be supplied so i am saying keep an open mind because it might not be right, i didnt say the big bang was 100% wrong i have stated many times it might be true, but it also might not be.

why do many of you ask for actual proof with certain subjects, but when you are asked to produce proof you fail to deliver?


peace.

 

Cosmology, by definition, claims to be the science of everything (in more recent times it has even invented the 'idea' of parallel universes in order to accommodate things that do not exist).
The ambition to find the ultimate reason for the existence of everything may be acceptable as a (pseudo-) religious quest but hardly as an objective and rational scientific endeavour. It is obvious that the assumption of a 'creation' is logically inconsistent with the scientific principle of cause and effect. Any valid scientific approach is therefore necessarily tied to the infinite dimensions of space and time as the forms of existence (the argument of cosmologists that time and space came only into existence at the 'time' of the big bang is a logical contradiction in itself and therefore scientifically nonsense).
What has led cosmologists to abandon logic and establish a pseudo-scientific system that tries to explain the creation and ultimate fate of everything ? At least with regard to modern times, the reason has to be seen in the discovery of the 'global' redshift of galaxies (Hubble Law), which, as interpreted through the Doppler effect, led to the conclusion that all galaxies are receding from each other. Now, in a homogeneous and infinite universe this is not possible as it would mean that the average mass density would permanently decrease, which would violate the continuity equation for mass conservation (in other words, mass conservation demands that the mass density has to increase elsewhere if it decreases in a given region of space; obviously this rules out an overall decrease of the mass density). Because of this, cosmologists decided to tamper with the forms of existence and make space itself an object in some imaginary hyperspace. However, even with this unphysical 'model', there remains the paradoxical consequence that not only the distances between galaxies but also the size of the latter should increase. Even atoms should become larger, altering therefore the fundamental frequencies for radiative transitions and resulting in an apparent blueshift for distant (young) galaxies.
It is obvious that space (as well as time) can not be a subject of scientific investigation as we ourselves are objects within them.
The observed redshift of galaxies is therefore not a consequence of space expansion but only of (intergalactic) distance and one should look for a physical effect that delivers this redshift rather than try to involve 'known' physics by bending the rules of logic and common sense. A good candidate for the actual cause of the redshift is the intergalactic plasma electric field (see the page Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies on my site plasmaphysics.org.uk; regarding the argument by Big-Bang cosmologists that other than recessional redshifts would not yield the observed time dilation of supernova lightcurves, see the page Galactic Redshifts and Supernova Lightcurves).
However, cosmologists can be accused of not only lacking a grasp of conceptual principles, but also of experimental expertise, as demonstrated by a crucial flaw in the WMAP data analysis.

The concept of a 'curved space', which is essential for present cosmological models, is logically flawed because it assumes that the distance between two points in a given (curved) metric is the shortest possible distance, which however is only the case for the Euclidean metric (as the shortest distance between two points is by definition a straight line). Mathematicians frequently try for instance to illustrate the properties of 'curved space' through the example of a spherical (or otherwise curved) surface and the associated geometrical relationships. However, a surface is only a mathematical abstraction within the actual (3-dimensional) space and one can in fact connect any two points on the surface of a physical object through a straight line by drilling through it.
Strictly speaking, one can not assign any properties at all to space (or time) as these are the outer forms of existence and it makes as much sense to speak of a 'curved space' as of a 'blue space'. Any such properties must be restricted to objects existing within space and time.
The concept of gravity being due to a space curvature, as promoted by General Relativity, is therefore also inconsistent and should be replaced by appropriate physical theories describing the trajectories of particles and/or light near these objects (see the Relativity page for more).

One should also note here the inconsistency that cosmologists are making when assuming a resultant gravitational force in their models despite adhering to the cosmological principle of homogeneity and isotropy (which should logically imply a zero gravity force everywhere throughout the universe as equal and opposite forces cancel). This obviously completely invalidates their conclusion regarding the existence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
But as indicated above, the primary mistake is of course to assume an expanding universe in the first place.