Big Bang Theory

Sythe, although the points you make are valid, you are acting as if we as humans have definite answers to extremely complex questions. The universe is such a vast and complex entity, and we must accept that many of these laws and theories which apply on Earth could very well be untrue in other areas. We have already come across major obstacles in our theories of the universe. We have decided that the universe is made up of Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain gravitational anomalies. We claim they make up 95% of the mass in the universe, yet we have never directly proved their existence.

Science has been known to make mistakes. Just look at atomic theory 100 years ago, or even old theories of the universe. To act as if we know exactly how things work, and to rule out theories which cannot be disproved is very foolish. We must realize that we as humans are likely very limited in our comprehension of what is taking place in the universe. Just as a colony of ants is very limited in their understanding of the world. We base our knowledge on indirect observations, and in many cases assumptions.

Until we can prove that the universe is indeed limited through direct evidence, and furthermore, prove that it is not a part of a greater entity, then we cannot rule it out. The humans of the 21st century are very far from having everything figured out.

 

[Ughster]

Sythe, although the points you make are valid, you are acting as if we as humans have definite answers to extremely complex questions. The universe is such a vast and complex entity, and we must accept that many of these laws and theories which apply on Earth could very well be untrue in other areas. We have already come across major obstacles in our theories of the universe. We have decided that the universe is made up of Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain gravitational anomalies. We claim they make up 95% of the mass in the universe, yet we have never directly proved their existence.

Science has been known to make mistakes. Just look at atomic theory 100 years ago, or even old theories of the universe. To act as if we know exactly how things work, and to rule out theories which cannot be disproved is very foolish. We must realize that we as humans are likely very limited in our comprehension of what is taking place in the universe. Just as a colony of ants is very limited in their understanding of the world. We base our knowledge on indirect observations, and in many cases assumptions.

Until we can prove that the universe is indeed limited through direct evidence, and furthermore, prove that it is not a part of a greater entity, then we cannot rule it out. The humans of the 21st century are very far from having everything figured out.

QFT

I often get really frustrated when I'm reading this forum, because if it's not some kid who thinks that the bible explains everything, it's someone else who thinks that rationalism and science is the ultimate and only solution to every problem. Rationalism/logic/science are appropriate at times but they have their own set of faults and limits.

We're slowly beginning to understand that we can't explain everything in absolute terms, in advanced mathematics and physics no one talks about what anything is anymore, everything is done with maps and concepts... imaginary numbers, infinity, etc.

The more we learn the more we realize how little we know about everything.

 

[Easter Bunny2]

Yes, but ughster, we use imaginary numbers, infinite etc. because we can not begin to fathom the length of space, numbers etc. We use the term "infinite" as a temporary term, but make it seem permanent because of our adaption to acceptance of the scientific community. We have developed a poor reflex to believe almost anything that comes out of the mouth of the scientists. Infinite is a term to describe any group of numbers or length that we have not seen an end in. For example, space. We have not seen the end of "space", and probably never will. Thus, we use the term infinite to back-up this so called "never-ending" realm. So, yes, infinite means that an object or a set of numbers does not have a definite end. But we also do not know if space does have an end, so we must assume that it goes forever, until proven wrong.

 

[Ughster]

Yes, but ughster, we use imaginary numbers, infinite etc. because we can not begin to fathom the length of space, numbers etc. We use the term "infinite" as a temporary term, but make it seem permanent because of our adaption to acceptance of the scientific community. We have developed a poor reflex to believe almost anything that comes out of the mouth of the scientists. Infinite is a term to describe any group of numbers or length that we have not seen an end in. For example, space. We have not seen the end of "space", and probably never will. Thus, we use the term infinite to back-up this so called "never-ending" realm. So, yes, infinite means that an object or a set of numbers does not have a definite end. But we also do not know if space does have an end, so we must assume that it goes forever, until proven wrong.

I know? I think I might have missed your point...

not trying to be insulting.

 

[Easter Bunny2]

I know? I think I might have missed your point...

not trying to be insulting.

Not really trying to prove you wrong, just stating a sort of "add-on" fact about infinite etc. Sorry if i confused you.

 

[Ughster]

No problem, it's my bad.

 

[Star1]

Okay, continue.

 

[Easter Bunny2]

But see Star, you are bringing God into this discussion and i recommend steering clear of that subject. Because until we prove for a fact that God is real or not real, you can not say that and be done. There is a topic about if god exists, but here we are trying to discuss the big bang without bringing religious matters into place.

 

[Star1]

But see Star, you are bringing God into this discussion and i recommend steering clear of that subject. Because until we prove for a fact that God is real or not real, you can not say that and be done. There is a topic about if god exists, but here we are trying to discuss the big bang without bringing religious matters into place.

Oh oops, sorry about that.
I meant the icon as a joke my bad.

 

[Easter Bunny2]

Oh oops, sorry about that.
I meant the icon as a joke my bad.

Its alright, just trying to make sure no one goes ballistic over the god thing.

 

Sythe, although the points you make are valid, you are acting as if we as humans have definite answers to extremely complex questions. The universe is such a vast and complex entity, and we must accept that many of these laws and theories which apply on Earth could very well be untrue in other areas. We have already come across major obstacles in our theories of the universe. We have decided that the universe is made up of Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain gravitational anomalies. We claim they make up 95% of the mass in the universe, yet we have never directly proved their existence.

Well I don't agree with Dark Matter or Dark Energy. I think they are easily as bunk as the rest of the arguments made by mainstream astronomers. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what is a metaphysical impossibility.

The case is quite the converse of what you suggest. YOU are acting as though we know all these things about the universe. I am saying we know only those things which we can deduce -- not guess -- from real knowledge, as induction is out of the question at the current point in time.

Science has been known to make mistakes. Just look at atomic theory 100 years ago, or even old theories of the universe. To act as if we know exactly how things work, and to rule out theories which cannot be disproved is very foolish.

Not at all. Physics rests on metaphysics. When you go out to study the universe you are assuming a set of rules about the nature of existents (things which exist). To then suggest that you are going to study and posit things which are not existents (or which necessarily cannot be existents) is to be in contradiction with one's self. Contradictions have no relation to reality. We work in a rational and consistent form with premises based on observation for one reason: the primacy of existence. Reality dictates to you, not visa versa. This is why we have the scientific method.

One would be wholly pointless and in contradiction in attempting to apply the scientific method to an unscientific (and irrational) hypothesis.

Further, your argument is once more entirely the converse. Not for a second do I believe our current model of the atom is correct. But you seem to put your thumbs in your belt and tell me that "they were wrong then, but they're right now" this is in basic contradiction with your own argument.

We must realize that we as humans are likely very limited in our comprehension of what is taking place in the universe. Just as a colony of ants is very limited in their understanding of the world. We base our knowledge on indirect observations, and in many cases assumptions.

This means nothing. It does not invalidate deductive reasoning. All I am showing you are contradictions in hypotheses. These hypotheses necessarily cannot be consistent with reality because they contain contradictions. To attempt to pursue them further would be entirely foolish. In studying the universe you've already assumed that it is rational and consistent and that it obeys many fundamental rules such as the law of identity.

Now, as you stated earlier, maybe these rules of reality could bend or change somewhere else. The somewhere part would be difficult for you because that implies distance which is part of the rules of reality. But ignoring that, even if they did change 'somewhere' or somehow in the universe we have no reason to believe they will, and no evidence to suggest how they will. So to assert that all hypotheses are equally valid with respect to the universe because of the possibility that the laws of reality may change somewhere is to give a blank cheque to unscientific minds.

Indeed, it is an irrational doubt (that the laws of the universe change), because it has no basis in reality, having no evidence to date, and as such it may be disregarded.

Until we can prove that the universe is indeed limited through direct evidence, and furthermore, prove that it is not a part of a greater entity, then we cannot rule it out. The humans of the 21st century are very far from having everything figured out.

Again you are dismissing deduction and saying induction is the only true way to gain knowledge, completely oblivious to the fact that deduction was learned THROUGH induction.

For those who don't have the foggiest on what I am saying here. Deduction is a way of gaining knowledge through 'deductive logic'. Induction is a way of gaining more direct knowledge through 'inductive logic'.

 

QFT

I often get really frustrated when I'm reading this forum, because if it's not some kid who thinks that the bible explains everything, it's someone else who thinks that rationalism and science is the ultimate and only solution to every problem. Rationalism/logic/science are appropriate at times but they have their own set of faults and limits.

So you are using rational debate to disprove rationality? Someone is in fundamental self-contradiction.

We're slowly beginning to understand that we can't explain everything in absolute terms, in advanced mathematics and physics no one talks about what anything is anymore, everything is done with maps and concepts... imaginary numbers, infinity, etc.

No, we are slowly learning that quantum physics is unscientific and we must take new directions if we want to pursue physics further.

The more we learn the more we realize how little we know about everything.

How little you clearly know about both epistemology and metaphysics.

 

[redpig]

believing in this theory is like believing that there is no GOD..... simple but rocks..

 

[0017513060]

well i guess i will tell the 0017 theory...

in the 0017 theory things go on to an infinite smallness (even smaller then quarks!) they also keep getting bigger (bigger then the "universe") there are also infinite amounts of things to it too.

in the 0017 theory there are an infinite amount of universes that are all infanitly expanding

earlier in 0017 theory i told you things can go to an infinite smallness. the universe started at just that that the most smallest possible thing you can imagine but smaller

if what you call the big bang the expansion of the universe then it was always happening and still is and will continue to happen forever

now as i said before there are an infinite amount of universes. what i have to add is that there is an outer layer of what i call "expandable" matter that defy s physics. it get bigger to cope with the big bang effect. expandable matter expand more then what the universe gets bigger. so this detaches into the universe it was made.what i call the universes lie in is space. space contains nothing, nothing at all, its just there. there is an infinite amount of space to cope with the ever expanding amount of universes.

now you may be wondering where did the first expandable matter come from? well i said that things went on forever so this does it too. the 0017 theory is just that, a theory. just like all science (except things like how things work such as our blood and stars except the fact that these things go down to an infinite smallness)

some note on expandable matter
all matter is made up of expandable matter but when it detaches it no longer has the property of it when it was attached 0017 theory cannot explain this

only expandable matter can pass through expandable matter to create yet another universe

the only things 0017 theory cant explain is how the first expandable matter came into existence and how it works

physics as we know it could be completely different in other universes except the fact of the expandable matter



based on Einsteins laws like you cant travel faster then light it wuld take an infantly large brain to comprehend the universe in its whole

 

[TJ]

believing in this theory is like believing that there is no GOD..... simple but rocks..

except that believing in science is more plausible than believing in unicorns.

 

[Faculty3000]

Well to me , I think that big bang is caused by some kind of monstrous explosion from the dusts particles.

 

[jebckr]

What 0017 said can be summed up in saying there was no beggining. time is a created sense. Everything has always existed and is expanding, so if you go back in "time" it gets smaller. Condensing into an infinantly dense subatomic particle of sorts.

 

[Need Unlocker1]

Sythe, although the points you make are valid, you are acting as if we as humans have definite answers to extremely complex questions. The universe is such a vast and complex entity, and we must accept that many of these laws and theories which apply on Earth could very well be untrue in other areas. We have already come across major obstacles in our theories of the universe. We have decided that the universe is made up of Dark Matter and Dark Energy to explain gravitational anomalies. We claim they make up 95% of the mass in the universe, yet we have never directly proved their existence.

Science has been known to make mistakes. Just look at atomic theory 100 years ago, or even old theories of the universe. To act as if we know exactly how things work, and to rule out theories which cannot be disproved is very foolish. We must realize that we as humans are likely very limited in our comprehension of what is taking place in the universe. Just as a colony of ants is very limited in their understanding of the world. We base our knowledge on indirect observations, and in many cases assumptions.

Until we can prove that the universe is indeed limited through direct evidence, and furthermore, prove that it is not a part of a greater entity, then we cannot rule it out. The humans of the 21st century are very far from having everything figured out.

He makes a excellent point, and I agree with about 95% of what he says.

 

[kids ranqe]

I believe in the Big bang theory.

 

[dark nite159]

How is the Big bang theory exactly?