FrostCloud Forums  

Go Back   FrostCloud Forums > Science/Technology > Space and Time

Greetings!

Space and Time Discussions on space, time, relativity, physics, and the nature of the universe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 3.00 average. Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-09-2007, 11:33 PM
dimensionQ's Avatar
dimensionQ dimensionQ is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Right there
Posts: 888
Big Bang Theory--'Fact' or Creation Myth

I think this is one of the largest pieces of scientific bullshit widely believed today. At one time it was a good idea, but there are too many holes in the theory to stand today. Physicist never want to admit they are wrong or even could be wrong, and this is a wonderful example. Here is my reason number one why this theory is bogus.

"Every time the big bang hypothesis runs into trouble, instead of abandoning it, its supporters just move the goal posts, introducing new and ever more arbitrary assumptions in order to shore it up. For example, the theory requires a certain amount of matter in the universe. If the universe was created 15 billion years ago, as the model predicts, there has simply not been enough time for the matter we observe to have congealed into galaxies like the Milky Way, without the help of invisible "dark matter.""

It is really easy to create solutions to cover up problems, and until dark matter is more fact than fiction this theory really should stick in the realm with time travel where it belongs. Human need beginnings to everything that exists and the universe seems to be no exception.


This came from the book Reason In Revolt, in the chapter on the Big Bang. Here is a link to the chapter.
http://www.marxist.com/science/bigbang.html
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 06-10-2007, 01:36 AM
Elayna's Avatar
Elayna Elayna is offline
Adept
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 14
Smile

I agree.

And oddly enough, while I am a Chrisitian I also dont believe that God created the earth in 7 days and the whole Adam and Eve thing.
I mean for goodness sakes if they were only 2 people with 2 sons, did they imbreed or what? And if they did talk about genetic malfunction. LOL.
Crazzzyyyy.

As far as the big bang theory goes...ummmm....lots of holes, not enough explanation and if it happened all those years ago, how come it hasnt happened again??

And where did the first single celled organisms come from? And where did Dark Matter come from??

I get that they have to try and explain life somehow because humans need an answer, but at least try and make it believable.

And why does everything have to be all science or all religion?? Why cant it be a little of both I wonder.
Hmmmm....off topic, just a random thought...

Anyhooooo
TTYL
__________________


Elayna
*Love and Light always*
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-10-2007, 06:10 AM
dimensionQ's Avatar
dimensionQ dimensionQ is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Right there
Posts: 888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elayna
And why does everything have to be all science or all religion?? Why cant it be a little of both I wonder.
In the end neither matter. Who cares if you know all there is to know in science or religion or both to find out that in the end, you didn't know a damn piece of truth. Spent an entire lifetime chasing falsities and absurdities. It isn't hard to see why philosophy became ridiculed. Philosopher were the only people who could point out the fallacies and rhetoric of religious dogma and provide skepticism and doubt for hyperactive science.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-10-2007, 06:59 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elayna
I agree.

And oddly enough, while I am a Chrisitian I also dont believe that God created the earth in 7 days
You see the world created in 7 days, eronously, precisely because you are christian. Genesis does not day so.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-10-2007, 07:06 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Understanding the BBT without the jargon.

The universe is expanding. This means, it has a beginning and is not infinite. This scenario would lead, naturally and obviously, to a reductionist point, and this is the BBT. While I to don't subsribe to this obvious and non-imaginative theory - from a scientific view there is hardly any alternative. Para and Multi-universes, string, etc - are all variations of the BB.

THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO GENESIS. This will becomes more clear when science can better understand the process described there.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-10-2007, 07:45 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
The Big Bang has nothing to do with religion. Your article is likely old because it does not mention COBE, WMAP, recombination or the type I supernova revolution of 1998. While it criticizes the BB it provides no alternative for it let alone a better one. The discussion on the smoothness/lumpiness is an asset of the BB/Inflation theory not a liability. No where does it talk about the Big Bang's ability to predict the percentage abundance of hydrogen, helium and lithium in the universe or offer any explanation the cosmic microwave background radiation itself. General Relativity predicts singularities. Singularities are not infinitely small. They are a Planck volume. Physics today can reduce the universe down to close to that size doing nothing particularly extraordinary. Read The First Three Minutes by Steven Weinberg and The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth.

The article you refer to is much like your own postings. It offers a lot of criticism of existing theory an NO CONTENT of your own.

Mike Dubbeld
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-10-2007, 08:11 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Dubbeld
The Big Bang has nothing to do with religion. Your article is likely old because it does not mention COBE, WMAP, recombination or the type I supernova revolution of 1998. While it criticizes the BB it provides no alternative for it let alone a better one. The discussion on the smoothness/lumpiness is an asset of the BB/Inflation theory not a liability. No where does it talk about the Big Bang's ability to predict the percentage abundance of hydrogen, helium and lithium in the universe or offer any explanation the cosmic microwave background radiation itself. General Relativity predicts singularities. Singularities are not infinitely small. They are a Planck volume. Physics today can reduce the universe down to close to that size doing nothing particularly extraordinary. Read The First Three Minutes by Steven Weinberg and The Inflationary Universe by Alan Guth.

The article you refer to is much like your own postings. It offers a lot of criticism of existing theory an NO CONTENT of your own.

Mike Dubbeld
You display a brilliant understanding of science. Science is a study of Creation, and religions as such have no input in the universe emergence - only Genesis does this. The world has a clumsy scenario of Genesis, mainly because it was presented by christinity and islam without any understanding of it. Thus the widespread mindset the world was created in 7 days. It's true understanding has been replaced by those who never ever followed this document, introdocung it to the world as a disney-like afterthought.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-10-2007, 08:35 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

'LET THERE BE LIGHT' [Genesis]

That verse can apply to a BB like premise. By the end of the first creation chapter, namely after the appearence of humans, science has not found any new entities in the universe - confirming the verse all of creation was completed. All things required for the universe to continue and progress are embedded in Genesis ch. 1.

But instead of focusing on this majestic and vindicated premise, the focus is - eronously - that this creation process took 7 days, whereas these are pre-sunlight epochs of time. Genesis says it brilliantly - seperating the cosmic phases from days as it applied to humans, with the injunction these are pre-luminosity periods, unlike the 24 hour days after creation was concluded. This grotesque reading is only possile from a deliberate paranoia against all religions - which victimises not Genesis - but science itself. This despite that the first recording of evolution - and the first scientific equation - comes from Genesis. The deceptively simple biblespeak should not confuse what is said, and its application today:

Evolution specie chronology: VEGETATION, FISH, MAMMALS [INCL INSECTS AND VIRUS], BIRDS, ANIMALS, HUMANS.

The first scienific Equation: 'A SEED SHALL FOLLOW ITS OWN KIND - CONTAINING THE SEED WHICH CAN REPRODUCE ITS OWN KIND'.


Medicine, and its separation from the occult, was also introduced in the OT.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-10-2007, 09:56 AM
Elayna's Avatar
Elayna Elayna is offline
Adept
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 14
Smile

In regards to Josephs comment...
I specifically said that I do not agree with the world being made in 7 days. Whether it be what the Bible "technically" says or not, it is what the general consensus is among the christian worlds.
I however disagree even though I was raised christian.

I see science as a neccessary in this world. If we did not have it we would be filled with a world of chaos and completly emotional people only ruled by their fears, desires and wants. I do not think it is a productive means, and I beleive that is some of the reason the BBT came to be.
Because we needed another answer to the question "where does life come from?" Other then the traditional point of view.
I respect the BBT in that aspect.
True I am not some major phsycicst, or mathematician or anything like that, so I do not completly understand the BBT in all its aspects, but from what I have read in my studies it to me does not make sense 100 percent.
But then again I dont think until we understand the makings of the universe as a whole will it completly come into focus.
I think that Darwin may have stumbled on the building blocks so to speak, but not the "true" answer if you will.
I think with more discovery and thought the "true" answer will come around.
Probably in a few million years or so...LOL. *joke*

As far as incorporating religion in with science I think that that too is neccessary. Humans have a great imagination. Without this we would not have science. True, sometimes imagination can lead you astray but it can continue to bring you forward. I think religion and imagination play into each other ,and by ones faith you can not only contiune to feel hope, but also continue to ask questions.

But maybe it needs to be seperate to keep each balanced.

Just my two cents.
TTYL
__________________


Elayna
*Love and Light always*
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-10-2007, 11:21 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elayna
In regards to Josephs comment...
I specifically said that I do not agree with the world being made in 7 days. Whether it be what the Bible "technically" says or not, it is what the general consensus is among the christian worlds.
I however disagree even though I was raised christian.
Restoring the OT from the NT and Quran assumptions will see science align with the OT and free it. The OT is not a theology of 'beliefs', but makes bold and specific declarations, with mathematical dates and millions of stats pervasive in its chapter and verses - where none have ventured. We would not know of chunks of ancient history but for the OT - which also gave us alphabetical books. Comparatively none of the NT and Quran stats can be vindicated historically, and in many cases they blatantly contradict each other: so why this enforced and comical alignment?

Science [the pursuit of knowledge] is a mandated command in the OT's 613 laws - its not a replacement or opposition. Science will be the ultimate vindication of the OT, and is now inclining towards it with controversial new theories such as MV and ID [read equal disastisfaction with today's science paranoia as with scriptures of belief]. Presently, the error seen in other scriptures, when alligned with history and science - are being borne out - with great reluctance.

Anyway, the universe was not created in 7 days - note also this first chapter is related with the universe, not merely the earth, addressing light, stars and luminosity. Right now, taking all state of art sciences and logic - there is no alternative to Genesis - aside from pushing the goal post further back forever in cyclical chaos. Genesis is science vindicated: when genesis declares speech-endowed humans are less than 5766 years old - perhaps the boldest verse in all scriptures - and is vindicated - what does it mean?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-10-2007, 03:30 PM
jackson33 jackson33 is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,343
while i feel BBT, is from a religious desire to show a creation and that we have been evolved from theological understanding of all things, the study of BBT should continue, be taught and explored as possible. my problem is more with the insistence the folks involved seem to have that no other scenario is possible. much of the argument opposing the acceptance of BB, is based on logic, which drives scientist crazy. how many times have i heard the universe shows no logic, when all i can see is logic.

when some one can prove the expansion (red/blue shifts) is not what the explanations/interpretations claim, the idea in total will suffer in credibility. unless some one gives a reasonable explanation to what the suggested singularity was, came from and some reason to be activated the theory will suffer credibility.

Elayna; whether mankind came from apes or any other possible explanation, inbreeding was a fact. certainly mankind didn't show up as a group.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-10-2007, 06:59 PM
dimensionQ's Avatar
dimensionQ dimensionQ is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Right there
Posts: 888
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackson33
much of the argument opposing the acceptance of BB, is based on logic, which drives scientist crazy. how many times have i heard the universe shows no logic, when all i can see is logic.
Exactly the point I have been trying to make. To think that the universe shows no logic shows that the person thinking this has no or little logical capabilities. Look how long we thought the universe was like a clock or machine. That doesn't make sense as life in general doesn't make sense if the universe was machinelike. Maybe if scientist would understand logic along with mathematics then they would see the errs in their ways. The universe is what it is...deal with it, and quit trying to explain it. The universe will always make you look foolish.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-10-2007, 07:55 PM
Bobbo Bobbo is offline
An old dog
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 2,881
Amazing that scientists will say what the universe "is" doing. What is observed is from near zero to several billions of years old. Why can't they bring themselves to say what the universe "was" doing? The only clue they have as to what it is like "now" is what it was doing several billion years ago; they won't see what it is like "now" for several billion more years.


As for an alternate to the BB, why could it not have precipitated out more or less everywhere at more or less the same time? Sort of like when the temp and pressure reach a critical point and condensation occurs to make clouds, but maybe a little faster. Might better explain some things like the lack of a center, uniform background radiation and lumpiness. A big singularity rather than a small one.

That last part is the joke. How does one measure the size of a singularity when all one knows is from the inside of it?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-11-2007, 12:49 AM
IamJoseph IamJoseph is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 22,527
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackson33
unless some one gives a reasonable explanation to what the suggested singularity was, came from and some reason to be activated the theory will suffer credibility.

The singularity factor is a dead one. Nothing can happen with a singularity [it takes at least 2 to tango]. And if there was a program embedded in the first singularity - then its not a singularity! The notion a sole factor can progress by itself is illogical. Usually, when delved further, they contradict themselves by siting energy, heat, vibrations, multiplications, etc - which again negate the singularity premise.

The Q is - what alternative? Here, pre- and multi-universes cannot apply: this only pushes the goal post further, culminating in the same paradox it is escaping from.

I am open to any logic here - but meanwhile - there is no alternative to Genesis.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-11-2007, 09:32 AM
Mike Dubbeld Mike Dubbeld is offline
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,649
Every criminal can rationalize their crime/depict it as logical. "They deserved to die." A woman in a mental institution was seen suddenly bending over at the waist and repeatedly jerking her head up and down a few times. When asked what she was doing she replied "I am queen of the birds." Quite a logical explanation for the queen of the birds. Logic is idiotic and people that think too highly of it simply don't know its limitations. Science is about gathering information to form premises. The universe is about the premises/content. Any idiot can logically manipulate simple logical things. The universe is the content. Logic is the context. To science it is a matter of insufficient data/content. Philosophers and shithouse lawyers on FC attempt to make up for their ignorance of content with innumberable useless context junk (bullshit).

If you think you are so good at logic, where is your mathematics to back up anything? After all, that is what mathematics is - a logical language. The language of science. Why don't you show me mathematically a superior theory to the BB? But no, it is like Hawking says the days when philosophers can keep up with science are gone. But that doesn't mean a scientist can't learn philosophy as the later is about 50 times easier than the former. Philosphers and their philosophy are like personal excretement disposal systems. Everybody has one. But everybody doesn't have general relativity and or QFT now do they?

It does not make you special to tell me 'Einstein was wrong.' I wish I had a nickle for every idiot that said those words. Show me you even have any sort of CLUE what Einstein did mathematically and why he was 'wrong' or jump in the lake/you are on drugs. Its not so much I think so highly of science and mathematics. It is how much contempt I have for people who don't know these things to start with telling me junk. To think outside the box you have to know what is INSIDE the box/inside science and mathematics to begin with. If you had any clue about a lot of the bullshit above, you would be talking about SPECIFIC experiments in science and specific ways those experiments were conducted and exactly how those data were interpreted using what mathematical models. The importance of those experiments and their implications on physical reality/what theories can be flushed if they are correct. You all do a good job of bullshitting each other.

Mike Dubbeld
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
is evolution is true ? Linkin8 Biology and Genetics 245 06-28-2010 11:49 AM
Serious question for global flood proponents 0ddity Religion 114 10-26-2007 03:16 AM
Why do many Christians support the Big Bang Theory? amour254 Religion 31 01-15-2007 12:13 PM
Is "MAN" = "A GOD" TruthInArt General Philosophy 54 02-04-2005 04:22 AM
Mind, Memory, And Archetype Violet Spirit Space and Time 2 04-01-2004 04:17 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:07 AM.



Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright 2000-2008 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited
Hosted and Maintained by The IceStorm Network