This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Pre- Big Bang? and The Big Rip?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Tens of thousands of scientists much, much more intelligent than you have been spending years trying to debunk the Big Bang theory, and yet for the most part its stood up to their efforts. You're nothing in comparison.
That's why it's the Big Bang Law, right?
/end sacrasm
Post by
MyTie
Tens of thousands of scientists much, much more intelligent than you have been spending years trying to debunk the Big Bang theory, and yet for the most part its stood up to their efforts. You're nothing in comparison.
Thanks! But I didn't make this thread to try to 'debunk' it. I'm not here to argue for or against, but to ask what came BEFORE. I'm looking at the space foam thing and boggleingI happen to believe that it is silly to think about something that you can't think of, create a mathematical model for, or even use philosophy or religion to help you out with.Who says it is impossible to think about? I don't have the 'give up' mentality.So I only care about the end, and namely, how to spread compassion and teach others compassion. That is what I care about, that is my focus. It is not as if thinking about the universe is somehow hindering me from being compassionate.
Skyfire - I can't access that paper.
Post by
TheMediator
That's why it's the Big Bang Law, right?
/end sacrasm
You obviously don't know anything about science. A scientific theory is as close to fact as one can get.
A proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon
, which is what you are thinking of, is called a hypothesis. That is not what the Big Bang theory is.
Post by
MyTie
That's why it's the Big Bang Law, right?
/end sacrasm
You obviously don't know anything about science. A scientific theory is as close to fact as one can get.
A proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon
, which is what you are thinking of, is called a hypothesis. That is not what the Big Bang theory is.Not really, no. The Big Bang is not like the Pythagorean theorem. There are real questions that loom about the Big Bang, that haven't yet been understood completely by modern science. Although the Big Bang is the best we can come up with right now, it is not accepted fact.
Even UCLA agrees.
Post by
Skyfire
A scientific theory is as close to fact as one can get.
No, that definition is reserved to scientific law. Classical gravity, for example.
@MyTie:
Let me hunt down something else then.
Post by
TheMediator
If the Big Bang were like the Pythagorean theorem, it wouldn't have to go through the rigorous process of testing. Unfortunately, most physical properties can't just be logic'd through. That's why evidence has to be collected, and that's why its a theory, but its as close as you can get without clear axioms.
Post by
MyTie
the Big Bang - its as close as you can get.That's true. But, in this case, it could still be way way off. We lack so much data, understanding, and sheer scientific ability, to form an accurate theory about the beginning of the universe, or even know if it IS halfway accurate, that to just accepting what is 'as good as we can get' is not good enough. I say, don't be scared of the drawing board. I say, think of new stuff.
Post by
Skyfire
Hmm, try
http://uploading.com/files/6278d45d/paper2-2003.doc/
maybe?
Post by
MyTie
Hmm, try
http://uploading.com/files/6278d45d/paper2-2003.doc/
maybe?
I'll look when I get home. I'm not eager to download stuff at work.
Post by
TheMediator
the Big Bang - its as close as you can get.That's true. But, in this case, it could still be way way off. We lack so much data, understanding, and sheer scientific ability, to form an accurate theory about the beginning of the universe, or even know if it IS halfway accurate, that to just accepting what is 'as good as we can get' is not good enough. I say, don't be scared of the drawing board. I say, think of new stuff.
I guess because you're uneducated you don't have respect for science, but you highly underestimate it.
Post by
Patty
Quit the elitism - or tone it down a little?
Post by
Skyfire
I guess because you're uneducated you don't have respect for science, but you highly underestimate it.
Ad hominem is ad hominem.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I guess because you're uneducated you don't have respect for science, but you highly underestimate it.
And I can see you don't have respect for grammatically coherent sentences.
That aside, is a pre-medical degree good enough for you? Or am I too uneducated to speak to also?
Post by
MyTie
ZOMG....The Big Bang is really nothing like a black hole. The Big Bang is a singularity extending through all space at a single instant, while a black hole is a singularity extending through all time at a single point.So... if a black hole is a singularity extending through all time... at a single point... then, did the black hole always exist, even before it was formed. If so, where?
MY HEAD! ZOMG!
source
I guess because you're uneducated you don't have respect for science, but you highly underestimate it.Awww... I love you too.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Can you be more condescending, no really, can you?What are you talking about? I may have been sarcastic when I said I 'loved him' as a reply to his personal attacks, but that's not condascending. Furthermore, a black hole is caused by the destruction of a star much larger than ours. What that is saying is that the Big Bang is a singularity and space is only that singularity ie there is nothing else. A black hole however, is a singularity that caused by a giant star in its death throes. There is space surrounding it, it is not the entire universe.
That's not what I get from this:
a black hole is a singularity extending through all time at a single point
. It says 'all time'.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
all time =/= all future time
Post by
MyTie
It simply means it will not go away, its not like heat and it cannot undergo chemical reactions.
What hyperspacerebel says. The UCLA says 'all time'. That means, all the past time too. Since we know that blackholes form at certain points in time, then how can they say 'all time'?
Post by
Skyfire
Hmm, try
http://uploading.com/files/6278d45d/paper2-2003.doc/
maybe?
I'll look when I get home. I'm not eager to download stuff at work.
Others can read it also, as it should answer the question posed. If it doesn't, than we can debate!
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.