|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The problems of big bang theory. What are they? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
Look at creationist websites. There's lots of them. They are the overwhelming majority of people who reject the Big Bang Theory, because they still insist that their particular chosen god (s) created everything (by speaking a word according to the Christian variety of reality-deniers) as is less than 10 000 years ago. Nothing to do with science.
I haven't heard about anyone else lately who's rejected the Big Bang for scientific reasons. During earlier decades up to the mid eighties, some physicists, cosmologists, etc (people with relevant qualifications) did. Nowadays, with all the evidence they obtained (through Hubble, etc.), these scientific doubters seem to have all but disappeared (apart from a few creationists, who give religious reasons). These creationists make up less than 0.1% of the scientific community. From what I understand (I don't have a relevant qualification, so I don't really understand the science) no scientific concensus on whether or not the Universe had a beginning has been reached. Research is still being done on it. They simply don't know. This does not influence the fact that a phenomena called the Big Bang (rapid expansion of space/time) happened. Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What I want to know is do people reject the big bang theory because the scientific evidence does not point towards it or because they dont agree with the view that the universe had a beginning. Neither. They reject it because they are Biblical literalists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
[quote]Look at creationist websites. There's lots of them. They are the overwhelming majority of people who reject the Big Bang Theory, because they still insist that their particular chosen god (s) created everything[/qupte]
Wonderfully wrong. The BB is rejected because it is simply not scientifically possible, and it contradicts a scientific equation in Genesis as well as Creationism - a scientific premise itself. The universe could not have begun with a singularity because then there cannot be an action. Everything begins with a 'duality' as the minimum requirement: it takes two to tango. The BBT is just a means of bypassing the enigma of origins, else we would not be able to proceed. The BBT is a greasy bryclream kidstuff premise: if the universe is exampanding this away, it must have come from that away. That's all it is
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3689 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: They are also all time Nobels literalists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maartenn100 Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 39 From: Belgium Antwerp Joined: |
Is here on the forum a 'quote-button' to answer in the messagebox? Thanks for helping:
What I want to know is do people reject the big bang theory because the scientific evidence does not point towards it or because they dont agree with the view that the universe had a beginning. The Big Bang Have you ever considered this: scientists say: 'the age of spacetime is 13.7 biljoen years old." This sentence makes no sense at all. How can 'spacetime' has an age? It's timeless. It's time itself. How can time has a clock? How can spacetime be first a singularity and expand? A singularity must expand in space to have 'some space'.Evolving into what? in time and space? that includes that time and space already existed before the expanding. Otherwise spacetime can not evolve in time. (has a history of 13.7 billion years) You see: that makes no sense at all. That's irrational. (in my opinion, it's non-local untill being observed) Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given. Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given. Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given. Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given. Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
You see it here, Portillo; scientists and also atheists don't have a problem with the Big Bang. The only people who do are creationists. Only a certain type of them, too.
Please leave atheists out of a conversation like this next time. You do seem rather...prejudised....when you put in writing that 'atheists' have a 'problem' with the Big Bang. They don't. The people who see a 'problem' are some theists. And they can't even string a meaningful and coherent sentence together, but can only use very vague word salads. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given. Edited by Pressie, : Deleted an extra "this".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maartenn100 Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 39 From: Belgium Antwerp Joined: |
Pressie, what are you talking about?
I just use rational reasoning in the discussion: How can time itself evolve in time (has a history of 13.7 billion years). It's a very rational question. No God needed.If time can evolve in time, time already exists. A little bit rational thinking and you can say: this whole theory can't be truth. Nice consistent math, but it can not be the case. It's more likely that matter is unpositioned in time and space, until being observed. Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given. Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Maartenn100 writes:
I doubt that they do. scientists say: 'the age of spacetime is 13.7 biljoen years old." It would be as meaningless as saying "The speed of velocity is 10m/s."
Maartenn100 writes:
Strawman much? This sentence makes no sense at all. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Pressie Member Posts: 2103 From: Pretoria, SA Joined: |
maarten100 writes: It is as far back as we have evidence for. That's the time that's elapsed since the Big Bang. Who has ever said that time evolved into time? I think you didn't get proper information when making a statement like that. Pressie, what are you talking about?I just use rational reasoning in the discussion: How can time itself evolve in time (has a history of 13.7 billion years). maarten100 writes: No, it doesn't. It's the same as: how can a cloud of gas evolve to be a star? That star didn't exist, now it does. The star had no time or age, now it does. It's a very rational question. No God needed. If time can evolve in time, time already exists. maarten100 writes: You don't even need math that the particular star didn't exist. It didn't. Now it does. That star had no time. Now it does. A little bit rational thinking and you can say: this whole theory can't be truth. Nice consistent math, but it can not be the case. maarten100 writes: Lots of things have existed while we haven't observed their existence. It existed, we just haven't observed it before. Those things still have age. However, a new species of bacteria was observed last year. In a lab. It didn't exist before. Now it does. The time of existence was zerod to last year. It's more likely that matter is unpositioned in time and space, until being observed.We've also seen new stars forming. We had evidence that it didn't exist, now we have evidence that it does. Those star's ages are very young. maarten100 writes: Whether we observe it or not doesn't matter. Whether we observe it or not won't change when it started. It's called reality. It's more likely that matter is unpositioned in time and space, until being observed. Tell me, maartin100, do you have any training in science?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Portillo writes: What I want to know is do people reject the big bang theory because the scientific evidence does not point towards it... It's difficult to see how anyone aware of the evidence could deny the obvious implication of an early universe with all matter and energy concentrated in a very tiny region. Denying this would just be silly. But the existence of an obvious implication does not mean it's the correct interpretation. Perhaps there are other interpretations that better explain the data, or perhaps new data will become available that calls the current consensus into question. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maartenn100 Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 39 From: Belgium Antwerp Joined: |
Pressie, (and Percy)
'to observe' is not what I really mean. It's more: to exist and to experience objects and measuring causalities in space and time'. But: spacetime is 13.7 billion years old.But spacetime is 'all events in the past or future'. So, how can 'spacetime' itself has a past or a future? Then you say: the evolution of spacetime is an event, in what? A star can evolve through time.But time itself can't have a past and a future, does it? And I don't say 'the event isn't there, if not been observed'I say: the event is not positioned by an observer in time and space, given his position from where he or she will measure the existence of the object The event is non-local until being observed. (lightspeedlimit)And the existential status of an object is what you see, feel etc. For example, an object in depth are pixels of different events given your position. The front of an object is younger then the sides you see of that same object. (light travels longer from there)Every pixel of an object is an event positioned in time given the position of a measuring observer. The interaction photon-matter-position observer will position it in time and space. Another observer (from another position) will localise the same object on a different position in time. Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given. Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given. Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given. Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given. Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given. Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given. Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think most of your problems stems from using the colloquial layman's analogy to the concept as the scientific concept, itself.
But: spacetime is 13.7 billion years old. But spacetime is 'all events in the past or future'. So, how can 'spacetime' itself has a past or a future? Because its finite, yet unbounded. Like the surface of a sphere. What you're asking is analogous to this: Earth's northern hemisphere has a length of 10000 km.But the Earth contains "all lines of latitude" So, how can 'Earth' itself have a north or a south? Don't make much sense does it? Earlier you wrote:
Have you ever considered this: scientists say: 'the age of spacetime is 13.7 biljoen years old." This sentence makes no sense at all. How can 'spacetime' has an age? It's timeless. It's time itself. How can time has a clock? The surface of the earth begins at the north pole, and it is ~40 degrees north of me. I can have a distance from the beginning, even though the Earth, itself, contains all the lines of latitude. Do you see?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Maartenn100 Member (Idle past 4614 days) Posts: 39 From: Belgium Antwerp Joined: |
Because its finite, yet unbounded. Like the surface of a sphere. What you're asking is analogous to this: Earth's northern hemisphere has a length of 10000 km.But the Earth contains "all lines of latitude" So, how can 'Earth' itself have a north or a south? I follow what you want to say, but in that case you can find a referencepoint. (space). But in the case of the 'event' spacetime, there is nothing to refere to. An event in what? In time? It's only 'spacetime' that exists. And 'spacetime' = "all events." I do agree on the 'spacetime'-idea. But it's difficult for me to except the idea that it has a past and a future itself. (evoluation in time). Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given. Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given. Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given. Edited by Maartenn100, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I follow what you want to say, but in that case you can find a referencepoint. (space). No, not from within the surface, itself, you can't. Space, assuming you mean outerspace, is outside the surface of the Earth and would be analogous to something outside the Universe, which is nonsense.
But in the case of the 'event' spacetime, there is nothing to refere to. An event in what? In time? It's only 'spacetime' that exists. Spacetime, itself, is not an event. Events take place within spacetime. The Big Bang is just one point in spacetime like the north pole is just one point on the surface of the Earth... it marks a point of a beginning of a finite unbounded surface. All of spacetime is analogous to that 2D surface, but in 4D. Its a 4D manifold. ABE: Whoa man, you gotta settle down on those edits. Or at least indicate where and what they are... that's nothing like what I replied to ABE2: Here's what was emailed to me:
quote: Just do your edits before you submit, there's even a "Preview" button.... Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE's
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Is here on the forum a 'quote-button' to answer in the messagebox? Thanks for helping: No quote button. There use to be such a button, but posters often tended to quote entire back and forth exchanges and Percy deleted removed the button. Assuming that scientists are complete morons utterly unable to apply common sense as well as you is probably the wrong approach. Or, phrased another way, saying 'It does not make sense to Maartenn100' is not a convincing attack.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024