Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Big Bang is NOT Scientific
lost-apathy
Member (Idle past 5409 days)
Posts: 67
From: Scottsdale, Az, USA
Joined: 04-24-2005


Message 1 of 301 (201746)
04-24-2005 1:25 PM


Ok now after reading through the forums a little I decided to start a new topic.
For starters i would like to point out a few things. I honestly think the big bang theory is not scientific at all, and I will tell you why.
There are certain points of the big bang theory that i believe and certain points that i think are completely bogus.
The theory that space and time were created with the big bang does not make sense at all. The evidence supporting the big bang only pertain to matter. The redshifts are based on observations made on matter not space or time.
Matter and space for one are two different things. We cannot see space, cannot test it, and is basically nothing. According to current science there is no way to change space. Matter is the only observable thing in this universe, making time and space two completely different subjects, which in turn make it impossible to prove that space and time is changable by observing matter.
But what I do not understand is why the big bang is accepted so much in the scientific community. It seems like humans are extremely limited to what we can see, for all we know billions of big bangs might be going on in the universe right now.(Without the space time idea)
Science is only based on the observable, what is not observable is not science. This in turn makes the big bang theory not science at all, more of a religion.
Who agrees?
This message has been edited by lost-apathy, 04-27-2005 08:31 AM
{ AdminSylas says. Fair warning to anyone who engages this: check out the formal promotion notice in Message 7. }
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 04-27-2005 08:20 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 04-27-2005 7:08 AM lost-apathy has replied
 Message 8 by Monk, posted 04-27-2005 8:59 PM lost-apathy has replied
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 04-27-2005 9:09 PM lost-apathy has replied
 Message 11 by coffee_addict, posted 04-27-2005 9:36 PM lost-apathy has replied

AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 301 (202930)
04-27-2005 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by lost-apathy
04-24-2005 1:25 PM


Hello, and welcome to EvC, lost-apathy!
I am not much of a scientist..(I am the faith/belief type guy...)
but I sense that your post is a bit too long and without a focus.
Perhaps you should start a topic with a title such as
Is there any evidence against an infinite universe?
A lot depends on which philosophy and type of topic that you wish to expound upon.
Big Bang and Cosmology?
Did the universe begin in a vast cataclysm billions of years ago, or with God's immortal words just some thousands of years ago? How do Creationism and science explain the universe we see today?
Faith and Belief?
Is God an objective reality or a subjective concept?
Redo your post. Bring it back to this thread and show it to us.
If we approve it, we will start it as a new thread.
I respect your desire to learn and to express yourself, however! You are only going to get smarter if you listen as much as talk and have an open mind towards other belief concepts.
Keep it up!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lost-apathy, posted 04-24-2005 1:25 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by lost-apathy, posted 04-27-2005 8:32 AM AdminPhat has replied

lost-apathy
Member (Idle past 5409 days)
Posts: 67
From: Scottsdale, Az, USA
Joined: 04-24-2005


Message 3 of 301 (202942)
04-27-2005 8:32 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminPhat
04-27-2005 7:08 AM


ok i edited it, now how is it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 04-27-2005 7:08 AM AdminPhat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by AdminPhat, posted 04-27-2005 6:04 PM lost-apathy has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12993
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 4 of 301 (202978)
04-27-2005 10:30 AM


A little reluctant about this one...
To the other moderators,
I won't stand in the way of releasing this thread, but I'm a little relucant to release threads containing errors of simple fact like "According to current science there is no way to change space." I'd love to release all kinds of topics like this for people who are interested in learning about it, but not for someone who has made no effort to educate himself about the actual scientific views and merely wants to make assertions out of ignorance.
Lost-Apathy, my advice to you is to either phrase your opening post as more of an inquiry than an assertion, or do some study. If you choose the latter, though its a thick book I think many people here would endorse my recommendation of The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality by Brian Greene. You really only need the first third to get a much better idea of what science actually says about space and time.
This message has been edited by Admin, 04-27-2005 10:30 AM

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by lost-apathy, posted 04-27-2005 7:02 PM Admin has not replied

AdminPhat
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 301 (203104)
04-27-2005 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by lost-apathy
04-27-2005 8:32 AM


Better....lets consider what needs to be said
lost apathy writes:
ok i edited it, now how is it?
Better.
Lets review it a moment, shall we?
For starters i would like to point out a few things. I honestly think the big bang theory is not scientific at all, and I will tell you why.
There are certain points of the big bang theory that i believe and certain points that i think are completely bogus.
Do you actually know the theory? Have you read it? Can you explain it?
The theory that space and time were created with the big bang does not make sense at all. The evidence supporting the big bang only pertain to matter. The redshifts are based on observations made on matter not space or time.
Since you are making a scientific assertion, you need to be able to defend your position...with facts and not feelings.
Matter and space for one are two different things. We cannot see space, cannot test it, and is basically nothing. According to current science there is no way to change space.
Read Percys comment in Post#2 above. Percy is the founder and originator of this forum. He and I do not agree on our theology, but we do share a love of wisdom and of helping out new members, such as yourself. I believe in God, but we cannot see God. We cannot even test for Him. Some say He does not exist, and I say He does.
Matter is the only observable thing in this universe, making time and space two completely different subjects, which in turn make it impossible to prove that space and time is changable by observing matter.
Not really. I am observing your thoughts in words. Are words matter, or ideas? Are you only matter?
But what I do not understand is why the big bang is accepted so much in the scientific community.
Do we know many scientists? Do we know how they arrive at conclusions?
It seems like humans are extremely limited to what we can see, for all we know billions of big bangs might be going on in the universe right now.(Without the space time idea)
Speculations are fun but they can go on forever! We each could be in a different universe for all we actually know! What would be my point? What is your point?
Science is only based on the observable, what is not observable is not science. This in turn makes the big bang theory not science at all, more of a religion.
Which is my department! So...do you believe in God? Are you religious? What forum would you place this topic in? Tell us more and continue with this topic.
Who agrees?
I agree with you as an individual with an opinion.
It is my job to find out why you think as you do, and where you want to begin your dialogue. It is great to lose ones apathy. It is better to explain ones belief and share ones passion!
I am saving you future trouble were you to release a post and have everyone ask you many of these same questions.
Tell me also...Faith and Belief or Universe and Cosmology? I see these as your only options.
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-27-2005 04:13 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by lost-apathy, posted 04-27-2005 8:32 AM lost-apathy has not replied

lost-apathy
Member (Idle past 5409 days)
Posts: 67
From: Scottsdale, Az, USA
Joined: 04-24-2005


Message 6 of 301 (203131)
04-27-2005 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
04-27-2005 10:30 AM


Re: A little reluctant about this one...
I think either we have our definitions of space mixed up or that you have taken the idea of relativity as fact.
Space- Place where matter ocupies.
1. relativity has NO evidence for it
2. space is not changeable in this universe, because we can only observe matter. According to science there has not been a single time where we have manipulated space or time so that it is different from before.
3. science is relied on the observable. Something that cannot be observed is not science. Space and time cannot be observed. Although it can be tested, you will always get the same result. It is constant.
4. Science is not math. It can help with solving scientific problems but cannot be completely based off math.
Btw I do know about space and time and I am not saying that it cannot be changed but merely that current science does not allow to change. Also that current science cannot explain how or why it changes if it is able to change.
If you want me to write a paper on it explaining it mroe i can, but the other admin guy told me to shorten my post so I did. Please make up your minds.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 04-27-2005 10:30 AM Admin has not replied

AdminSylas
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 301 (203144)
04-27-2005 8:04 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
To all participants in this thread: please show restraint in your manner of engagement. Moderators are likely to take a dim view of anyone who merely rants in response to this thread.
I have decided to promote this topic, complete with discussion carried over from the Proposed New Topics forum. The topic proposer has decided not to take the advice of Admin in Message 4, to rephrase his post as a question. He has chosen instead to repeat as simple declarations a few points that are trivially incorrect. In my view, it is not really the role of moderators to engage the substance of a post; so if the advice given during the initial review is rejected, we should either reject the post or promote it as given.
We don't know as yet whether lost-apathy is a beginning student with a few misconceptions, or someone who has has actually studied a lot of relativity and has some rather ... unusual ... perspectives or criticisms. In either case, please engage the substance and not the person, and please don't get irritated if lost-apathy fails accept your explanations. You can still explain gently for the sake of others where the assertions of lost-apathy differ from the mainstream, and why you prefer the mainstream perspective.
Thanks, and lets be careful out there. -- AdminSylas
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 04-27-2005 08:24 PM

Monk
Member (Idle past 3914 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 8 of 301 (203165)
04-27-2005 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lost-apathy
04-24-2005 1:25 PM


Some Evidence
quote:
Science is only based on the observable, what is not observable is not science. This in turn makes the big bang theory not science at all, more of a religion.
But we do have some observable evidence that can be measured which indicates the big bang did occur. Read this Penzias and Wilson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lost-apathy, posted 04-24-2005 1:25 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by lost-apathy, posted 04-27-2005 9:21 PM Monk has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 301 (203168)
04-27-2005 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lost-apathy
04-24-2005 1:25 PM


A clarification (or, perhaps, a mere perspective)
quote:
The theory that space and time were created with the big bang does not make sense at all.
I disagree with this statement. I disagree with this for a very trivial reason: Big Bang does not really refer to an event. Big Bang is the name of a theory that is based on observations that we can make today, and using the known laws to physics to determine the implications of those observations.
Here is a brief (and probably inaccurate) description of Big Bang. I welcome any corrections from those who actually have any knowledge of this subject.
It is an observational fact that the spectra of distant galaxies are red shifted. It is a standard interpretation of such a red shift that these galaxies are receding from us.
It is an observational fact that the amount of the redshift is proportional to their distance from us. A reasonable interpretation is that the universe itself is expanding. This is reasonable since General Relativity, a well-verified scientific theory, itself makes the prediction that the universe must either be expanding or contracting -- unless one adds an ad hoc kluge to prevent it.
So, assuming that the universe is expanding, we can then, mentally, "run the clock backwards" to see what the universe was like in the past. Well, galaxies must have been closer in the past. The universe must have been denser, and, using the known laws of physics, we can determine that the universe was hotter in the past.
Eventually, we get to a point that the universe was so dense and so hot that the known laws of physics are known to be inadequate to accurately describe the universe. At this point, we cannot continue to extrapolate backwards, and so we can only guess at what the universe may have been like, what processes may have been occurring.
These are not idle speculations -- we can test whether there is any validity to this theory. For instance, if the universe is really expanding, it must have been very hot in the distant past. If it were very hot in the distant past, the universe must have been filled with a "blackbody radiation" that was indicative of this situation. As the universe expanded to our present day, this radiation, by our known laws of physics, must have retained its blackbody temperature, but "cool" down, becoming indicative of a cooler temperture: it must be mostly microwave radiation. In other words, if Big Bang is correct, the universe must be filled with this microwave radiation. We do, in fact, observe this radiation -- a confirmation of a prediction of this theory, in the best traditions of science.
What the Big Bang does not do is describe the actual beginning of the universe, if it does indeed have a beginning. As I have stated in other threads, our present laws of physics are not adequate to describe the universe before a certain time after the creation. Right now scientists are trying to improve our understanding of the laws of physics so that we can understand the universe at these earlier times, but for now any discussion of the origin of the universe can only be speculation. It may always be only speculation. It may be that our knowledge of the laws of science will always be inadequate to understand the nature of the origin of the universe, if it does have an origin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lost-apathy, posted 04-24-2005 1:25 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by lost-apathy, posted 04-27-2005 9:37 PM Chiroptera has not replied
 Message 38 by nipok, posted 04-29-2005 12:55 AM Chiroptera has replied

lost-apathy
Member (Idle past 5409 days)
Posts: 67
From: Scottsdale, Az, USA
Joined: 04-24-2005


Message 10 of 301 (203171)
04-27-2005 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Monk
04-27-2005 8:59 PM


Re: Some Evidence
Monk writes:
But we do have some observable evidence that can be measured which indicates the big bang did occur. Read this Penzias and Wilson
For one there are certain points of the big bang that I believe and do not believe.
1. There is sufficient evidence that galaxies are moving further from each other, and that there was a massive explosion billions of years ago that sent energy out in all directions.
2. However this is all pertaining to matter within the universe, not concerning space and time at all.
The big bang theory says that space and time were also created at the begining of the universe, but there is absolutely no evidence of this.
Space and time are two things you cannot see. The only thing we can see is the matter within the space. From what science experiments today have shown us is that space and time DO NOT depend on matter and is not changeable.
Since space and time are not observeable and current tests show that space and time are not changable, it makes the big bang theory merely a assumption and not scientific.
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 04-29-2005 09:30 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Monk, posted 04-27-2005 8:59 PM Monk has not replied

coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 467 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 11 of 301 (203176)
04-27-2005 9:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by lost-apathy
04-24-2005 1:25 PM


Cranky mode
AS writes:
To all participants in this thread: please show restraint in your manner of engagement. Moderators are likely to take a dim view of anyone who merely rants in response to this thread.
Ok, I'll try.
lost=apathy writes:
Ok now after reading through the forums a little I decided to start a new topic.
It should be noted that what is presented as scientific evidence is almost always not limited to discussion forums. It takes a life time for a person to research and study the evidence in science. The least you could do is show some respect.
The theory that space and time were created with the big bang does not make sense at all. The evidence supporting the big bang only pertain to matter. The redshifts are based on observations made on matter not space or time.
I'm curious to what you know about the redshift. What does the redshift indicate? How does redshift support the big bang theory?
The reason I'm asking you these questions is because I don't really know where you're going with this argument. You need to be more specific before we can advance any further.
Matter and space for one are two different things. We cannot see space, cannot test it, and is basically nothing. According to current science there is no way to change space. Matter is the only observable thing in this universe, making time and space two completely different subjects, which in turn make it impossible to prove that space and time is changable by observing matter.
How do you explain the michelson-morley experiment? What about the time dilation effect on the GPS satellites? Read this link.
But what I do not understand is why the big bang is accepted so much in the scientific community. It seems like humans are extremely limited to what we can see, for all we know billions of big bangs might be going on in the universe right now.(Without the space time idea)
Because it made predictions that have been proven accurate years after they were made.
Science is only based on the observable, what is not observable is not science. This in turn makes the big bang theory not science at all, more of a religion.
But we do observe many evidence of it, though.
Your understanding of what science is is very limited. Perhaps you should have asked questions rather than making assertions that are just wrong.
Who agrees?
At this point, I would ask that all who agree with lost-apathy to respond with an "aye".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by lost-apathy, posted 04-24-2005 1:25 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by lost-apathy, posted 04-27-2005 10:12 PM coffee_addict has replied

lost-apathy
Member (Idle past 5409 days)
Posts: 67
From: Scottsdale, Az, USA
Joined: 04-24-2005


Message 12 of 301 (203177)
04-27-2005 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Chiroptera
04-27-2005 9:09 PM


Re: A clarification (or, perhaps, a mere perspective)
The Matter within the universe is expanding, but there is not evidence at all that space itself is expanding. When you look through a telescope you do not see space but only matter. Space does not depend on matter, therefore making it so there can be space without matter but not matter without space.
quote:
This is reasonable since General Relativity, a well-verified scientific theory, itself makes the prediction that the universe must either be expanding or contracting
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. People have also been trying to disprove it for many years but still it has not been done. Why is this? Because space and time are not things that can be observed.
The theory of relativity is more like a belief. Like god no one has proved it right or wrong.
quote:
These are not idle speculations -- we can test whether there is any validity to this theory. For instance, if the universe is really expanding, it must have been very hot in the distant past. If it were very hot in the distant past, the universe must have been filled with a "blackbody radiation" that was indicative of this situation. As the universe expanded to our present day, this radiation, by our known laws of physics, must have retained its blackbody temperature, but "cool" down, becoming indicative of a cooler temperture: it must be mostly microwave radiation. In other words, if Big Bang is correct, the universe must be filled with this microwave radiation. We do, in fact, observe this radiation -- a confirmation of a prediction of this theory, in the best traditions of science.
This just shows that the matter within the universe originated. Not space and time. There could have been billions of big bangs before the most recent one. It just depends on how you think about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 04-27-2005 9:09 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 04-27-2005 9:54 PM lost-apathy has replied
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 04-27-2005 10:24 PM lost-apathy has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 13 of 301 (203178)
04-27-2005 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by lost-apathy
04-27-2005 9:37 PM


No evidence for General Relativity?
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. People have also been trying to disprove it for many years but still it has not been done. Why is this? Because space and time are not things that can be observed.
The theory of relativity is more like a belief. Like god no one has proved it right or wrong.
Since you are making such strong statements about areas of physics it seems fair to presume that you actually know something about the subject.
Therefore it is fair to ask you to list the generally accepted experiments that have been done for general realitivity, what the accepted results are and your discussion of why they do not count as support for GR.
I'll make it easy for you: You may start with the 1919 measurements of the bending of light. Since that is, certainly by todays standards, flawed you may knock the first one off easily. Then you can continue with the others. Since I'm not as expert like you are I'm only aware of a few of them. It will be interesting to learn more from you.
Unfortunately you have, so far, only made bare, naked, unsubstantiated assertions. Far be it for me to say that you have something hanging out in the wind but that is the first impression.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by lost-apathy, posted 04-27-2005 9:37 PM lost-apathy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by lost-apathy, posted 04-27-2005 10:30 PM NosyNed has replied

lost-apathy
Member (Idle past 5409 days)
Posts: 67
From: Scottsdale, Az, USA
Joined: 04-24-2005


Message 14 of 301 (203184)
04-27-2005 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by coffee_addict
04-27-2005 9:36 PM


Re: Cranky mode
Sorry if it didn;t seem like i was showing respect but my other approach wasn't getting anyones attention. It really seems like the more bogus your approach is the more people will reply.
Here's a random quote of what a redshift is.
"‘Redshift’ describes the characteristic lines in the spectrum due to hydrogen, calcium and other elements which appear at longer (redder) wavelengths than in a terrestrial laboratory. The simple explanation attributes this effect to the recession velocity of the emitting source — like the falling pitch of a receding train whistle, the Doppler effect. It was therefore concluded that the fainter and smaller the galaxy, the more distant it is, and the faster it is moving away from us. This velocity interpretation of the redshift — the apparent brightness relation — forms the standard interpretation of the Hubble Law." - Paul Ballard: Halton Arp, Redshifts and the Hubble Law. Anomalies with Quasars
This I actually believe, but it has no relation to space and time which is what I am basing my arguments around. The galaxies are moving further away from us, but it does not prove that space is also expanding with the galaxies.It is all based on matter. WHen it comes to matter it is the only thing we can observe. Our thoughts, sound, light, everything in the known universe is a result of matter and not
space.
{ AdminSylas warns: careful, lost-apathy. The request to behave applies to you also. Ad hominem against Professor Pullin is not a proper response to the question. You have also selected only one of the 6 definitions available in the dictionary, which is not the one relevant to Professor Pullin's job description. This is obfuscation, and it looks deliberate.
You chose not to take Admin's advice to rephrase your post as questions; and so you are not going to get a lot of sympathy. If you start to see that perhaps you were wrong to make such definite claims in the original post, then you had better say so rather than obfuscate. This is a fair warning; not for discussion. I have also responded on the substance in my non-admin role. }
This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 04-27-2005 11:02 PM
This message has been edited by lost-apathy, 04-27-2005 11:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by coffee_addict, posted 04-27-2005 9:36 PM coffee_addict has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by coffee_addict, posted 04-27-2005 10:41 PM lost-apathy has replied
 Message 19 by Sylas, posted 04-27-2005 10:55 PM lost-apathy has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1457 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 15 of 301 (203186)
04-27-2005 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by lost-apathy
04-27-2005 9:37 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by lost-apathy, posted 04-27-2005 9:37 PM lost-apathy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by paisano, posted 04-27-2005 11:53 PM crashfrog has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024