Welcome to Gaia! ::


Many of you seem to be under the impression that the Big Bang theory is not only illogical, but doesn't even work scientifically. However, most of you probably don't even know what it is, so let me attempt to explain with the help of Stephen Hawking. For the record all of the following quotations are taken from his lecture "The Beginning of Time". Please keep in mind that I am undecided in my opinion of the Big Bang, and am not trying to "convert" anyone. I am just offended by the number of ignorant jackasses who claim to have proven the Big Bang theory false with no knowledge of what it even is.

Stephen Hawking
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.


Hopefully this except from his lecture provides at least a slight bit of insight as to what the Big Bang theory actually is, for those of you who have "disproven" it without ever reading up on it. While the theory will probably never be proven, as the extent of human knowledge is very limited, at this point it is the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe. Do you really think a 13-year-old teenager busy trying not to fail the school's on-level science courses can effectively disprove a theory widely supported by veteran cosmologists? Most likely not.

EDIT 1/7/2005:
While obviously at this point the Big Bang theory cannot be proven or disproven, and will probably never be proven (as mankind will undoubtably eliminate itself long before that kind of discovery could ever be made), cosmologists don't accept the Big Bang theory because they're senseless sheep. They accept it because it has the most scientific evidence in support of it, and it makes sense. There have been records of radioactive material supposedly left over from the explosion itself floating in space.

Cosmic microwave background radiation

Did the Big Bang make noise?

Kudos to Zoch for taking the time to find the two above links.

Isaac Asimov
Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something someone dreamt up after being drunk all night.
RatiugLink
Hopefully this except from his lecture provides at least a slight bit of insight as to what the Big Bang theory actually is, for those of you who have "disproven" it without ever reading up on it. While the theory will probably never be proven, as the extent of human knowledge is very limited, at this point it is the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe. Do you really think a 13-year-old teenager busy trying not to fail the school's on-level science courses can effectively disprove a theory widely supported by veteran cosmologists? Most likely not.

Isaac Asimov
Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something someone dreamt up after being drunk all night.

I agree.

I actually have created a theory that incorporates the Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Evolution, and Genesis. But that's for another forum.
Indeed. Although I occasionally talk about things I know little about, I still hate it when people try to disprove things they know nothing about.

I don't know if I exactly believe in the Big Bang Theory but right now it's the best thing I've heard of yet. It makes the universe more realistic. Does it make sense that everything in the universe, before and after creation, should follow the properties of a small, insignificant planet following a yellow star?

I believe that the laws of physics do not apply everywhere, I saw a show on the Travel channel that talked about a place called the Vortex, where normal laws of physics don't apply, I don't know, I need to check it out more, simply because I want to go there next year.
here is my theory: How the hell and why did this force occur? there had to have bene something creating the force, therefore there was sometihng there, but just nothingness...if you follow me...
Yeah, I know out of all of my freinds, i'm probably the only one who knows what the big bang theroy really is. I believe it happened, but I sorta get really thinking on how matter came into existance in the first place.
RatiugLink
Many of you seem to be under the impression that the Big Bang theory is not only illogical, but doesn't even work scientifically. However, most of you probably don't even know what it is, so let me attempt to explain with the help of Stephen Hawking. For the record all of the following quotations are taken from his lecture "The Beginning of Time". Please keep in mind that I am undecided in my opinion of the Big Bang, and am not trying to "convert" anyone. I am just offended by the number of ignorant jackasses who claim to have proven the Big Bang theory false with no knowledge of what it even is.

Stephen Hawking
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.


Hopefully this except from his lecture provides at least a slight bit of insight as to what the Big Bang theory actually is, for those of you who have "disproven" it without ever reading up on it. While the theory will probably never be proven, as the extent of human knowledge is very limited, at this point it is the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe. Do you really think a 13-year-old teenager busy trying not to fail the school's on-level science courses can effectively disprove a theory widely supported by veteran cosmologists? Most likely not.

Isaac Asimov
Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something someone dreamt up after being drunk all night.


So what created the Bang? theoretically it would never happen as time would not exist, thus an explosion of any type could never exist, or in fact even start. Your quote states that the laws of physics wouldn't apply. Why? The laws of physics have always applied as far as we can tell, so there is nothing to prove that they would even "not" exist, and if they didn't exist, what made them exist. Another explosion>?
Sidnay
here is my theory: How the hell and why did this force occur? there had to have bene something creating the force, therefore there was sometihng there, but just nothingness...if you follow me...
The law of causality, or any other universal laws for that matter, existed before the Big Bang, because there was no universe.
WhiteSavage
RatiugLink
Many of you seem to be under the impression that the Big Bang theory is not only illogical, but doesn't even work scientifically. However, most of you probably don't even know what it is, so let me attempt to explain with the help of Stephen Hawking. For the record all of the following quotations are taken from his lecture "The Beginning of Time". Please keep in mind that I am undecided in my opinion of the Big Bang, and am not trying to "convert" anyone. I am just offended by the number of ignorant jackasses who claim to have proven the Big Bang theory false with no knowledge of what it even is.

Stephen Hawking
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.


Hopefully this except from his lecture provides at least a slight bit of insight as to what the Big Bang theory actually is, for those of you who have "disproven" it without ever reading up on it. While the theory will probably never be proven, as the extent of human knowledge is very limited, at this point it is the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe. Do you really think a 13-year-old teenager busy trying not to fail the school's on-level science courses can effectively disprove a theory widely supported by veteran cosmologists? Most likely not.

Isaac Asimov
Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something someone dreamt up after being drunk all night.


So what created the Bang? theoretically it would never happen as time would not exist, thus an explosion of any type could never exist, or in fact even start. Your quote states that the laws of physics wouldn't apply. Why? The laws of physics have always applied as far as we can tell, so there is nothing to prove that they would even "not" exist, and if they didn't exist, what made them exist. Another explosion>?

Well if it wasn't the Big Bang, what was it then? To dissaprove a theory you must to come up with a theory of your own that is more logical than the theory in question.
Zoch
Sidnay
here is my theory: How the hell and why did this force occur? there had to have bene something creating the force, therefore there was sometihng there, but just nothingness...if you follow me...
The law of causality, or any other universal laws for that matter, existed before the Big Bang, because there was no universe.


I dont believe in the Big bang myself, however the theory states that the entire universe was in some micro-small bubble. As to what was outside the bubble obviously all the dynamite needed for the blast. Laws like gravity and relativity wouldn't work. But they have always been there, there is nothing to disprove that.
Ryunosuke the White
WhiteSavage
RatiugLink
Many of you seem to be under the impression that the Big Bang theory is not only illogical, but doesn't even work scientifically. However, most of you probably don't even know what it is, so let me attempt to explain with the help of Stephen Hawking. For the record all of the following quotations are taken from his lecture "The Beginning of Time". Please keep in mind that I am undecided in my opinion of the Big Bang, and am not trying to "convert" anyone. I am just offended by the number of ignorant jackasses who claim to have proven the Big Bang theory false with no knowledge of what it even is.

Stephen Hawking
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.


Hopefully this except from his lecture provides at least a slight bit of insight as to what the Big Bang theory actually is, for those of you who have "disproven" it without ever reading up on it. While the theory will probably never be proven, as the extent of human knowledge is very limited, at this point it is the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe. Do you really think a 13-year-old teenager busy trying not to fail the school's on-level science courses can effectively disprove a theory widely supported by veteran cosmologists? Most likely not.

Isaac Asimov
Creationists make it sound as though a "theory" is something someone dreamt up after being drunk all night.


So what created the Bang? theoretically it would never happen as time would not exist, thus an explosion of any type could never exist, or in fact even start. Your quote states that the laws of physics wouldn't apply. Why? The laws of physics have always applied as far as we can tell, so there is nothing to prove that they would even "not" exist, and if they didn't exist, what made them exist. Another explosion>?

Well if it wasn't the Big Bang, what was it then? To dissaprove a theory you must to come up with a theory of your own that is more logical than the theory in question.


Later, oh and I do wink but later I g2g run.
WhiteSavage
Zoch
Sidnay
here is my theory: How the hell and why did this force occur? there had to have bene something creating the force, therefore there was sometihng there, but just nothingness...if you follow me...
The law of causality, or any other universal laws for that matter, existed before the Big Bang, because there was no universe.


I dont believe in the Big bang myself, however the theory states that the entire universe was in some micro-small bubble.
No it doesn't. "Before" the Big Bang (arbitrary, because the Big Bang created time) there was nothing, not even nothing.
WhiteSavage
So what created the Bang?

Nothing. The Big Bang does not require a deity of any kind. It is acausal.
Quote:
theoretically it would never happen as time would not exist, thus an explosion of any type could never exist, or in fact even start.

It's not an explosion. "Big Bang" was coined by some idiot that thought the theory was so unbelievably stupid, it was just completely beneath him. At the exact point of the Big Bang, three spatial dimensions and the dimension for time were instantly created. There was no "start" of the Big Bang. It just happened.

Quote:
Your quote states that the laws of physics wouldn't apply. Why?
Because there was no universe. There cannot be a law if there's nothing. That would be like passing a law saying you're not allowed to take a piss in Alabama when you travel backwards in time. There's just nothing for it to apply to.
RatiugLink


Stephen Hawking


Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier.


Stephen Hawking states the possibility of something before the Big Bang, but simply throws it out, since there's no possible way we can tell what happened. But the fact is that there was something before the Big Bang, we just don't know what. It is possible that there was something before there was something else. This reality could've replaced a different reality. And you can't disprove me, nor can I disprove you.
I want to know, why must we argue over where we came from? no matter how far back you go, the end answer is whatever began the universe was always there before the other things, to an infinite degree. So why not cut that down and merely say "Life has always been here" and accept it? Lifes too important to worry about where we came from.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum