|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 28, 2006 7:51 pm
The big bang can't be an explanation of the universe because it gos against the simplest, common law you learn in elementary; Newtons Law that states: for every action there's a reaction and vice versa for every reaction there's an action. This a basic definition of time which means that the big bang can't be an explanation of origin of the universe because there always have to be action to cause the reaction(The big bang). You see time can be traced infinitely backwards just as we go infinitely forward, so the origin of the universe can't be ruled by the laws of the universe. Definition of Infinite: a repeating pattern.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 9:00 am
You're saying that the law of causality proves that the big bang didn't happen.
What you fail to take into account is that by the same logic, there could have been no beginning to the universe or anything else that wasn't based on anything else(including the God explanation!).
Also, you're wrong about infinite. Pi and e are both numbers that are infinite but not repeating. They're called transcendental numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:34 pm
Phaedrus17 You're saying that the law of causality proves that the big bang didn't happen. What you fail to take into account is that by the same logic, there could have been no beginning to the universe or anything else that wasn't based on anything else(including the God explanation!). Also, you're wrong about infinite. Pi and e are both numbers that are infinite but not repeating. They're called transcendental numbers. Except Pi hasn't been proven to be infinite yet because there is a possibility that it may repeat a number and after that, it ends. But I do agree that the Universe never had a beginning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:05 am
Devin K. Truessence Except Pi hasn't been proven to be infinite yet because there is a possibility that it may repeat a number and after that, it ends. But I do agree that the Universe never had a beginning. It's still infinite whether it's repeating or not. It may not be proven to be, but there are transcendental numbers that are proven to be such. I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:01 pm
Although I practically live my life by Newton's Third Law of Motion, it seems that scientists are recently attempting to disprove it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:33 am
Um, I could be wrong, but I believe time is considered a measure of change by scientists.
Also, funny thing, on a small enough scale the laws of physics break down into the laws of quantum physics and then they probably change again in some smaller setup. And whose to say that the big bang didn't occur on a sub-atomic level triggering a larger one on a different level.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:33 am
Right, on a quantum level laws of physics that apply to larger objects don't exactly work. It's bloody chaotic as far as we can tell! Check out string theory, M-theory or whatever.
And as brilliant a scientist Newton was in his time, it's been said that his laws were outdated by the time Einstein revealed his thoeries. And yes, there are flaws in that too (i'm no physisist so i don't know what exactly).
Anyway, who says that the (possible) beginning of the universe had to follow the laws of physics or any kind of sense at all? Why do you think that these 3 (or 4) dimensions we live in give any insight into how things actually are? It's been suspected that there are at least, at LEAST, 11 dimensions in our universe. Could be more... The point here is that if they indeed do exist and we can't sense them then imagine how much else we aren't capable of comprehending! We think we have the capacity of understanding these things but we don't. We came down from the trees not that long ago too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
