The Big Bang!

[hoshi23]

it seems at that point lots of things become valid aswell as not. (quantum) :biggrin:

[evilneko]

Trivia: The term "Big Bang Theory" is actually a pejorative coined by a scientist who opposed the theory.

[Chaosblade02]

The Big Bang is only a theory, and still hasn't been accepted as fact. I really don't think science knows for certain how the universe came to be, its all speculation until they forward some hard evidence with science that that no holes can be punched through. It could be one of those questions they might never find the answer for. One argument against the idea is for this to have taken place, at once time the Universe would have had to have expanded matter many times faster than the speed of light, which is not possible in physics as we know it.

 

Its also possible for man to come up with some ignorant assumptions based on little or no evidence, people once thought the world was flat and if you sailed far enough you would fall off. Or thought the Earth was the center of the Universe. Only time will tell if the Big Bang theory will be another ignorant assumption like those or a fact.

[InternetTherapist]

people once thought the world was flat and if you sailed far enough you would fall off. Or thought the Earth was the center of the Universe. Only time will tell if the Big Bang theory will be another ignorant assumption like those or a fact.

And by people you mean the same groups who now say the big bang isn't real?

How does that example make any sense? It makes sense until you got to the end, in which you twisted around the answer.

 

No, it hasn't been accepted as fact by people who don't understand it, and no, you can't record it on camera as it happened in the past. But just like air you can prove by extension, you can prove it through the need for it to exist and the evidence left behind.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bigbangredux.html

 

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but what you believe isn't going to sway scientists, and I'll side with them.

[AncientSpaceAeon]

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but what you believe isn't going to sway scientists, and I'll side with them.

 

Who said that all scientists believed the Big Bang? Give me proof.

 

I'll won't side with anyone in this subject, both sides have great reasons.

[brokenergy]

There is a lot of observable evidence like the red shift effect in further galaxies close to the edge (in normal reference in abortion lines from light spectrometry (or fingerprint of the element) is straight but when closer to the edge of the universe it shifts to the red end of the visible light spectrum)

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Redshift.png

 

Example of redshift above

 

The problem is that is the universe pulsating (eventually collapse of itself), ever expanding or expanding before reaching a limit?

[InternetTherapist]

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but what you believe isn't going to sway scientists, and I'll side with them.

 

Who said that all scientists believed the Big Bang?

 

Nobody did, but a majority of them do believe in the big bang. Polls show it's in the 95%+ range.

 

I'll won't side with anyone in this subject, both sides have great reasons.

 

Alright, then what are those reasons?

 

Give me proof.

 

I already did, I posted a link above.

[Chaosblade02]

people once thought the world was flat and if you sailed far enough you would fall off. Or thought the Earth was the center of the Universe. Only time will tell if the Big Bang theory will be another ignorant assumption like those or a fact.

And by people you mean the same groups who now say the big bang isn't real?

How does that example make any sense? It makes sense until you got to the end, in which you twisted around the answer.

 

No, it hasn't been accepted as fact by people who don't understand it, and no, you can't record it on camera as it happened in the past. But just like air you can prove by extension, you can prove it through the need for it to exist and the evidence left behind.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bigbangredux.html

 

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but what you believe isn't going to sway scientists, and I'll side with them.

 

You completely missed the point I was trying to make. All I am saying is science doesn't have all the answers, and there is much about the universe that they don't understand. The big bang theory is exactly that, a theory, nothing more. But the idea that the world was flat at one time was also a theory, but people considered it a fact, even though it sounds ridiculous today. We don't even understand how much of the universe works, so how can we assume how it was created?

[InternetTherapist]

people once thought the world was flat and if you sailed far enough you would fall off. Or thought the Earth was the center of the Universe. Only time will tell if the Big Bang theory will be another ignorant assumption like those or a fact.

And by people you mean the same groups who now say the big bang isn't real?

How does that example make any sense? It makes sense until you got to the end, in which you twisted around the answer.

 

No, it hasn't been accepted as fact by people who don't understand it, and no, you can't record it on camera as it happened in the past. But just like air you can prove by extension, you can prove it through the need for it to exist and the evidence left behind.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/bigbangredux.html

 

You can believe whatever you want to believe, but what you believe isn't going to sway scientists, and I'll side with them.

 

You completely missed the point I was trying to make. All I am saying is science doesn't have all the answers, and there is much about the universe that they don't understand. The big bang theory is exactly that, a theory, nothing more. But the idea that the world was flat at one time was also a theory, but people considered it a fact, even though it sounds ridiculous today. We don't even understand how much of the universe works, so how can we assume how it was created?

I would like to point out that gravity is still a theory too.

 

I'm not sure you quite understand what the word theory means and implies, it does not imply something is not yet proven, it only means that it's an answer, and by extension all answers can be wrong, whether they're right or not is based on the evidence.

 

Yes, I saw that point, and it is a good one in that it's good to always question a theory, that's how they get better, that's how we figure out what's real and what's not.

 

But there is a point in which a theory gets close enough to fact that it's pretty much proven. It should always be questioned but surely it shouldn't be disbelieved forever and ever until pictures are shown, look at the links I've given, those findings aren't enough to have unwavering belief in it, nor to never question it, but they are enough to accept it as fact for now.

 

Personally I can't think of a single theory which I don't believe should be questioned vigorously when new evidence relating to it comes up, but look at politicians, they're hardly on trial 24/7 for cheating on their wife, for breaking the law or any other wrong doings, so until something comes up, yes, I will believe that Obama isn't a murdering wife beating secret male prostitute.

 

Your point is valid but I felt it seemed a little bit off, sort of like calling Israel the new Nazi Germany, whether or not someone believes they're comparable doesn't change the fact that the comparison feels off.

 

So I pointed that out.

I'm sorry if it seemed like I missed your point, maybe it might seem like this one missed it as well, let me wrap it up then.

 

I understand your post didn't really SAY anything other than that it is possible for it to be proven to be ridiculous in the future, but that's kind of unfair, if there is little or no real scientific evidence to believe that it isn't real as it is then why not say we could find out that up is down and down is up? That the world IS in fact still flat after all?

 

I don't object to you saying it's possible, I object to the implication that we should have any more doubt in something because unknown evidence can come to light, I find that to be a ridiculous stance which severely limits our ability to understand the world, but I don't think you really took that stance, only implied it.

 

 

tl;dr

Read THIS and know a theory can never become a law, even if proven 100% true, because a law is inherently different from an explanation.

[nosisab]

What if the fabric of universe was sectorally disturbed so the fundamentals of matter and energy were created on pairs?

That should be every point collapsing over itself, condensing and dragging the fabric's space, diluting to the microcosm vacuum and extending beyond the original boundaries. Yes, supposing it is about the same as revivifying the universal ether, it just is not anymore in the universe in any significant quantities and still is the main fabric's component.

 

The collapsed points with the equivalent dilution themselves supply the attractors to bring those neighboring density points together giving birth to more complex corps in a fractal like process.

 

That dual condensing/diluting(expanding) is not a process that was, it is a process in course.

 

Now it's needed a pause, it may need to introduce a few newer concepts, actually just a new vision to old ones.

 

The above conjecture should be 'universal', it should be valid at the mathematics too. So I propose considering the two infinitudes, which we'll call "zero" and the "infinite" themselves are expanding toward their senses (it's to say the zero is shrinking and infinite expanding). This is valid for every point in their interval.

 

Again it may need to clarify the concepts of the infinite and zero. Infinite is not a point infinitely distant, it is absolute UNO, it's the WHOLE. Zero is not a point too, it is the whole field of every and all points, the zero is the absolute MULTIPLICITY. Both these infinitudes are responsible for the entire interval that could not be understood without both (we'll see the birth of the finite, the individual, the quantity... very soon). So to understand what is being said it's need to understand that zero is everywhere and that zero on a rule is just an 'origin', zero is infinite too, each representative of it is so unachievable as the infinite itself.

 

A figure may help to understand than the very 'infinite rule' is the one that has the zero and infinite in the extremes. It's known from elementary math the any base elevated to 0 is the unity. The primordial interval between zero and infinite is continuous and amorphous... except in that point where the "unity" happens, and it is aways in that rule's center, for any base... the inverse rationing leads to every and all 'unities' there form the set of all finites. More, it says don't matter the value of the finite it will be always equidistant from and in-between the zero and infinite.

 

What makes for something being "infinite"?

The infinite can't be reached, it can't be static. Should it be, so would exist a real number nearest than any other to it, would exist a real number nearest another real number than any other. A mathematician will notice here the definition of "hyper-real number" embryo. This entity is actually known but it is not explained yet and can't in a non dynamic, expanding environment.

 

But now we have the infinites are expanding and dragging the whole interval, so at all time are surging 'gaps' where no number existed before. Can't exist a greater than every other real anymore because new ones are constantly happening, there is not a real nearest another real anymore because the same phenomenon and can't exist a number smaller than any other by the same reason. These newcomers are by definition the hyper-reals and soon are the new reals while new gaps are being filled all the time.

 

The above allows for: Every fraction of the infinite interval is infinite too. I let to you to understand this.

 

We are tripping toward this very post beginning. Now is the own 'infinites' that are expanding and dragging everything in the interval with them, we don't need an explosion anymore. We don't need a non explainable original matter, all the universe's attributes are generated in the process, from mater-energy to space-time and every and all others intervals.

 

When fundamental matter agglutinated to form the preons, quarks and so on, it carried the equivalent dilution and so the "space-time" was born, an interval describable by velocity and the velocity itself limited to that of the ongoing process.

 

From that point and ahead, the nowadays physics can take the bridle.

 

IMPORTANT POINT - all the above is based on a "formant duality" reasoning, there is no sense in trying to understand the process unilaterally. It's all about 'intervals'. The ancients already knew the principles, it is nicely expressed on the basics at the Yin-Yang and the Taoist thinking.