Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The problems of big bang theory. What are they?
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 78 of 389 (430288)
10-24-2007 10:28 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by EighteenDelta
10-24-2007 9:41 AM


Re: The bitter simple question
I think the idea is that at t<0 members.
Dont feel bad. The singularity is difficult for professional physicists to clarify. The fact that the entire framework of physical laws we are used to breaks down at the singularity is quite an obstacle to comprehension.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by EighteenDelta, posted 10-24-2007 9:41 AM EighteenDelta has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 105 of 389 (430400)
10-25-2007 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by TyberiusMax
10-25-2007 1:10 AM


Re: More false dichotomies
I would like you to know I am a Believer in God, a personal God believer, and a born again christian. This is my FAITH, THIS FAITH is
"inserting "God did it""
I have no answer to my God's "existence" and I accept that I do not know and will never know all about him because I believe he is infinite.
Once again this goes against all laws we know ande is impossible.
That is why this is my FAITH.
YOU CANNOT ARGUE AGAINST THIS, IT IS MY FAITH
you cannot say it is wrong because it has not been proven or disproven
This is the science section of the forum. Faith alone is not admissible as evidence here.
Besides, you haven't really added anything to debate about. You have faith in God? Fine.
I have faith in the flying spaghetti monster. He created the entire universe last Thursday, with the appearance of age including all of you memories, beginning with a midget on a hill.
You can't argue with it because it can't be proven or disproven.
Do you see how utterly retarded that "logic" is? If something is unfalsifiable, that is, it is compeltely untestable and we cannot know whether it exists or not, it clearly has no bearing on reality. It must be an extraneous entity, and a Universe with the entity must be identical to a universe without it.
1+1=2.
1+1+x=2.
In this example, x=0. It's an extraneous term. Whether the variable is there or not, it is completely irrelevant to the terms we are certain about, so there is no reason to state it.
If God is completely untestable and unfalsifiable, if the Universal origin is identical with or without him, then there is no reason to assume God exists, for the exact same reason you do not believe in fairies or invisible unicorns or trolls or my flying spaghetti monster.
If
(the universe as we observe it) = reality
and
(the universe as we observe it + God) = reality
then
God = 0.

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-25-2007 1:10 AM TyberiusMax has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by TyberiusMax, posted 10-25-2007 9:03 AM Rahvin has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 164 of 389 (457760)
02-25-2008 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by johnfolton
02-25-2008 2:13 AM


Re: Problem with the big bang
Perhaps the problem is the name big bang that suggests an explosion that the name should be changed if the universe multiplied due to say an expansion. If scientists no longer agree it started with a bang then change the name, etc...
They never did agree that it started with anything like a "bang."
From Wiki:
quote:
It is an irony that it was Hoyle who coined the name that would come to be applied to Lematre's theory, referring to it as "this big bang idea" in derision during a 1950 BBC radio broadcast.
Fred Hoyle, who coined the term, was the main proponent of the "steady state" model, where new matter would actually be "created" as the Universe expands. As you can see above, he meant the phrase "this big bang idea" to be derisive - he was one of the scientist in opposition to the current model before a real consensus was achieved.
Unfortunately for all of us, the name stuck. Removing it now would be like, say, trying to change the date of Christmas simply becasue we all know it wasn't the real date of Jesus' birth. The theory's name has now been causing confusion and misunderstandings among the incompletely informed for nearly 60 years, and I doubt it's ever going to get better.
10 years from now, 20, maybe even 30, I'm sure there will still be people who have been educated as to what the Big Bang model actualy is arguing against those who think it's like a chemical explosion as the name implies. Just like today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by johnfolton, posted 02-25-2008 2:13 AM johnfolton 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