|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5449 days) Posts: 67 From: Scottsdale, Az, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Big Bang is NOT Scientific | |||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There is actually NO evidence for this theory scientists have been trying to prove it for over 50 years yet still there has yet to be evidence. That's not actually true. There's a significant body of experimental verification of both special and general relativity; for instance we can directly observe time dialation effects most spectacularly in experiments where accurate atomic clocks are taken on high-speed jet rides; a more common variation of this experiment is to accelerate particles with a known, short half-life and observe that their greater velocity leads to a longer half-life. Hiroshima, and later Nagasaki, were both leveled at the end of World War II by the most famous demonstration of the veracity of Einstein's theories. Where, exactly, did you get this idea that we don't have any evidence for relativity? The only theory for which we have more evidence is probably the theory of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Philosophy is the base of all science. I don't believe that philosophy, except in a historical sense, can be the base of anything. Philosophy is an exercise where we determine that we don't know what we think we know. If you want to actually gather some knowledge, then you need to apply methods that no longer properly belong under the heading of "philosophy", methods like empiricism and experimentation that have since come under the term "science." Philosophers used to be scientists. Now they ask questions about what words mean and what knowledge is. I recognize the debt science owes to philosophy but currently, science has incorporated all that philosophy has to offer the discovery of information about the universe.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I think what he's saying to you is that your qualifier was a little silly; if you say "this always happens, except when it doesn't" you'll very obviously never be wrong. Neither, however, will you have said anything worthwhile.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
How do you think Darwin came up with the theory of evolution? The same way all theories are developed - as an explanitory framework based on observations.
Philosophy of course. No, by observation.
When something cannot be observed you use philosophy to understand it and come up with a hypothesis. If it can't be observed, how do you know there's something there you need philosophy to understand?
I for one am a evolutionist and have faith of evolution, because it still, like the big bang, has not been proven factual. Quite untrue. Evolution is fact, a fact which the theory of evolution explains.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
1. I am not talking about special relativity but general relativity 2. I am not talking about how there is evidence that proves relativity wrong, but how there is not sufficient evidence to back it up. Again this assertion is in error. There is significant experimental and observational confirmation of the accuracy of general relativity; Einstein's model has been confirmed in every test performed to date. From the Wiki article:
quote: General relativity - Wikipedia The only scientific theory with more evidence behind it is, possibly, the theory of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If that is not what most astronomers beleive, considering those are the only books that are in my house which mention the big bang and are not Abeca books, I have a reason to believe that you (evolutionists) believe that the big bang was an explosion. As stated, it's an inaccurate metaphor. The Big Bang was an "explosion" in the sense that it was a very rapid expansion of spacetime; not in the sense that it was a detonation caused by the rapid combustion of an explosive material like dynamite.
There is no scientific evidence for the big bang. 1) The observation that everything in the universe is moving apart from everything else. 2) A constant hum of microwave background radiation that is uniform in every direction observed. The first was the evidence that suggested the theory; the second was a fulfilled prediction of it. The math works out, too. Where did you get the idea that there's no scientific evidence for the big bang?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I thought that gravity pulls things together. My old science teacher has said that if you had an empty universe and put two pencils on oposite sides of the universe they would move twords one another, not away. That's absolutely correct, assuming the pencils are initially at rest. Unfortunately that's not what is observed; we observe that galaxies, pencils, and all the rest of it are moving apart, against gravity, not towards each other. That means that these objects did not begin at rest but rather, with an initial acceleration away from each other. If we trace that backwards through time we discover that all observable objects in the universe begin at one single location.
And all that proves is that there is a core to the universe, not that there was some explosion or rapid expansion of very hot gasses. We know from simple physics that compressing the observable mass of the universe into one small space would result in very hot gases indeed. So, indeed, it does prove that there was a rapid expansion of superheated, primordeal gas.
Something cant be created out of nothing, its not possible. What makes you say that? "Something" out of nothing is often observed at the quantum level, a truth detectable by the "Casimir effect". We've known this for about 50 years or so.
Saying that there was a single atom or molocule in the begining that created everything is farfeched, and saying that everything was very compact (dont argue my definitions please) is not solving anything, because it all still had to be there, unless you are saying that the laws of phisics were different which leads to the absurd statement that the big bang changed physics. I don't think there was a single atom or molecule; the big bang theory does not state that the initial singularity was an atom or molecule. You may be confused because common descriptions of the big bang assert that the primordeal universe was the size of an atom, or even smaller; but that primordeal concentration of energy was not itself an atom. Where did that concentration of energy come from? That's not clear at this point. Did the big bang change physics? Not likely; it's much more likely that we simply don't know how the laws of physics work at that point in time.
I could go on but i am guessing yuor brains hurt. If you need me to explain anything just ask. You're funny.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Virtual particle pairs are merely rumblings in the quantum fields. It is the quantum fields that are the real objects and they are always there... they are the ocean and the particle pair are a couple of induced waves. Hawking radiation was, I thought, the exception to this rule? Such radiation represented, I thought, the "realization" of one of a virtual particle pair after the other tumbles into the event horizon of a black hole. I'm the first to admit, though, that my knowledge of these physical concepts is a little fast and loose. I was wrong to have presented what I did as thought I was an authority.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
It's the comsologists' fault, not yours Nice of you to say, but my ignorance is always my responsibility. Great series of posts, btw.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
One being or intelligent creator is sufficient to explain how the universe came to exist. An infinite intelligent deity always represents more unneccesary entities than any finite number of natural laws or natural phenomena. Don't get caught up on that word "one". One infinity is always more than any finite amount.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024