The Big Bang is NOT Scientific

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

ok i edited it, now how is it?

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.

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

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.

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 QuasarsThis 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 PMThis message has been edited by lost-apathy, 04-27-2005 11:16 PM

quote:

---

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.

---

For one, right now I AM NOT thinking scientifically, but philisophically. I am not saying that any of these theories are wrong. WHat I am saying is that they are not scientific.Science - the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstandingGavity is a common scientific fact. If I drop a pencil 10 times I can guartee that the ten times i drop it it will go to the ground defying all outliers.Now can you guarantee me that if i fly a space ship out into no where that i will hit the end of the universe? No because it has not been tested yet. Space hasn't been tested to the end of the universe, and time has stayed constant for as long as we know. So please tell me some evidence that space is like a bubble and not infinite.This message has been edited by lost-apathy, 04-27-2005 11:23 PM

quote:

---

Careful, lost-apathy. The request to behave applies to you also. If you start being deliberately troublesome, you will incur my official wrath in my admin role.

---

Sorry if this made you upset, but i was just joking around, you know the look up idiot in the dictionary and you'll find the name... But yeah I'll make sure it won't happen again.

quote:

---

quote:

---

For one, right now not I AM NOT thinking scientifically, but philisophically.

---

​

So your statements about there being no support for GR are based on ignorance of the science?

​

That is boring.

---

Philosophy is the base of all science. How do you think aristotle figured that the earth is round, or that the sun is bigger than the earth? Philosophy enables us to figure things out that arn't currently explainable by science, which is how all hypothesis's start. But yeah you didn't answer my question.

I'm sorry if you didn't get my joke, but yeah.What I think redhifts are(correct me if i'm wrong) is a back up of hubbles. It uses wavelengths and frequency's to measure the light of a galaxy to figure how far away and the speed at which they are moving away.
-But like I said before this has to do with matter within the universe and not space. If galaxies are moving away like dots on a balloon does that mean space is also moving with it?As for the one article you linked me I read it and it is quite interesting.
Here's a quote from that same article.
"At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity with the system because the SV clocks are actively steered to be within 1 microsecond of Universal Coordinated Time (USNO).Several relativistic effects are too small to affect the system at current accuracy levels, but may become important as the system is improved; these include gravitational time delays, frequency shifts of clocks in satellites due to earth's quadrupole potential, and space curvature."From what i get from reading this is that currently our technology is not precise enough to measure to such a degree. He said it in his own words. "At present one cannot easily perform tests of relativity." Now if you cannot test it how can it be science? Science is based on ACCURATE tests and many observations.

Whats wrong with arguing with the dictionary? One of the most common reasons people don't understand each other is because of the use of words.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If I drop a pencil 10 times I can guartee that the ten times i drop it it will go to the ground defying all outliers.

---

​

What does it mean to "defy all outliers?" I think that this is an indication that your thoughts on this subject may be a little unclear, and that you don't know as much about this subject as you seem to think that you do.

---

Ok lets take a trip back to third grade science.
1. An outlier is a piece of data that sticks out of the other data. Meaning that if i drop the pencil 10 times and 9 times it goes strait to the ground. The tenth one goes up instead of down first. This is a outlier.If i were to say that "If I drop a pencil 10 times I can guarantee that the ten times i drop it it will go to the ground" I would be wrong. There are some cases that the pencil will not go to the ground. For example if I'm on the superman ride and drop the pencil right when i get to the top it will float in the air for a little and not fall to my feet.

How do you think Darwin came up with the theory of evolution? Philosophy of course. When something cannot be observed you use philosophy to understand it and come up with a hypothesis. Evolution cannot be observed but clues and evidence can be gathered to help support the theory. I for one am a evolutionist and have faith of evolution, because it still, like the big bang, has not been proven factual.

quote:

---

I'm afraid you've seized on something out of context as support for your assertions, where it really isn't.

​

In particle physics, lifetime measurements of particles are made at resolution below a picosecond. These lifetime measurements are a quite direct verification of special relativity. The relativistic effect on the particle lifetimes and trajectories are readily observable. This is also observed in cosmic ray muons.

​

Your assertions that special relativity has not been verified by experiemt and observation are simply incorrect.

---

Its seems that you are misunderstanding what I am talking about.
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.
3. If I am wrong explain to me how these certain things are sufficient evidence instead of just blatantly saying I AM WRONG.

quote:

---

Sorry, you got it wrong. It is true that the GPS system is not good for testing relativity, but it's not because we can't test relativity; rather, it's because GPS is nowhere near as accurate as the best instruments we have for testing relativity, and to keep it performing its primary function we have to reset the clocks periodically. But it's an excellent example of practical application of relativity.

---

You have just backed up my point that the article given is not sufficient evidence for relativity, but just a mere example.

quote:

---

Actually, what I meant was that the phrase "defy all outliers" is meaningless. One can defy authority, one can defy expectations, but I have never heard of anyone defying an outlier. Unless by "outlier" one means the particular person in a position of authority who is out lying in that field. While I am not necessarily against a creative use of language, I am always suspicious when a person who is arguing against the scientific consensus uses terms in a non-standard way -- it sets off my "crackpot" alarm.

---

I hope you know what you're saying by this. Has it ever occured to you that outliers may be because of human error or miscalculation? Lets take a example of carbon dating. There have been many cases to where carbon dating has not been accurate, which is why we do the test many times. If a rock is dated to be 5 billions years old 5 times and two times is some crazy number, they are not going to take the average of all the numbmers, but the most accurate ones. Its just a matter of how you look at it.