Home› A Moving Train

The Big Bang

AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
edited December 2006 in A Moving Train
I've always had trouble buying this theory. Sounds like a load of crap to me.

One alternative, of course, being a solid-state universe.

Any thoughts?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Post edited by Unknown User on
«134567

Comments

  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I've always had trouble buying this theory. Sounds like a load of crap to me.

    One alternative, of course, being a solid-state universe.

    Any thoughts?
    What is a solid-state universe?
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    What is a solid-state universe?

    A universe with no beginning or end, no start and no finish.

    It's just infinity.

    Some theorize that galaxies change and give birth to new galaxies.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6545246
  • yosi1yosi1 Posts: 3,272
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I've always had trouble buying this theory. Sounds like a load of crap to me.

    One alternative, of course, being a solid-state universe.

    Any thoughts?

    Yea. The odds of something like the Big Bang happening are so fucking small, that it is mind boggling that something like that could really happen. But there sure seems to be quite a lot of evidence to support it.
    you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
  • trappedinmyradiotrappedinmyradio Posts: 1,189
    angelica wrote:
    What is a solid-state universe?

    static rather than dynamic in nature...always present...never changing...always exisiting

    and, also, the topic of the day for the ole boy...it's survey time.
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • cornnifercornnifer Posts: 2,130
    Not even Stephen Hawking cam remove singularity without the use of imaginary numbers.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • trappedinmyradiotrappedinmyradio Posts: 1,189
    Ahnimus wrote:
    A universe with no beginning or end, no start and no finish.

    It's just infinity.

    Some theorize that galaxies change and give birth to new galaxies.

    infinity has a starting point...but no end point.
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    farfromglorified wrote:
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6545246

    lol

    Big Hole theory.

    Brian Greene is an interesting character.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • trappedinmyradiotrappedinmyradio Posts: 1,189
    cornnifer wrote:
    Not even Stephen Hawking cam remove singularity without the use of imaginary numbers.

    imaginary numbers...maybe just beyond comprehension at this level of development.
    I'll dig a tunnel
    from my window to yours
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    Ahnimus wrote:
    A universe with no beginning or end, no start and no finish.

    It's just infinity.

    Some theorize that galaxies change and give birth to new galaxies.
    If the idea of "holons" works in a theory of everything, everything is a whole while also being a part of another whole. Therefore each "universe" is a whole in of itself, while also being a part of another whole. Of course it gets a big weird when we are going beyond just science and the purely physical for our understanding in order to conceptualize "what is". Obviously the limits of our imaginations play a part in what we imagine.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    trappedinmyradio wrote:
    imaginary numbers...maybe just beyond comprehension at this level of development.

    The problem is, Big Bang theory has had to undergo all kinds of changes throughout history. There are now at least 3 imaginary substances in the universe.

    Not to mention, a big mass of matter had to evolve from nothing in a very specific configuration to allow for the universe to exist. Any slight variation in the configuration would have caused the universe to collapse, even with the imaginary numbers.

    To me, it sounds like an attempt at proving God through Cosmology.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    trappedinmyradio wrote:
    infinity has a starting point...but no end point.
    It can't have a starting point, because viewed backwards it's not then infinite. Infinity has to work both ways to be infinite, doesn't it?
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    trappedinmyradio wrote:
    infinity has a starting point...but no end point.

    Oh reaaaaaly?

    So you suggest that the term "infinity" implies a finite starting point? Interesting.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • chopitdownchopitdown Posts: 2,222
    angelica wrote:
    It can't have a starting point, because viewed backwards it's not then infinite. Infinity has to work both ways to be infinite, doesn't it?

    yep
    make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
  • cornnifercornnifer Posts: 2,130
    trappedinmyradio wrote:
    imaginary numbers...maybe just beyond comprehension at this level of development.
    Hawking once conceptualized a theory of the universe that seemed to eliminate singularity. He used imaginary numbers. When numbers were converted back to real ones, singularity reappeared. Hawking is regarded, perhaps rightfully so, as the most brilliant cosmologist ever alive so...
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    The Big Bang theory doesn't suggest an origination point. It's simply one event in a chain of events.
  • cornnifercornnifer Posts: 2,130
    Ahnimus wrote:

    To me, it sounds like an attempt at proving God through Cosmology.

    Perhaps, i'm mistaken, but wasn't Big Bang theory once used in attempt to DISPROVE God? Doesn't really work, so now some attempt to tear down the theory and replace it with something else. Actually many, many something elses.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • angelicaangelica Posts: 6,038
    chopitdown wrote:
    yep
    whew. I thought my sad lack of math knowledge was about to catch up to me.

    And infinity goes not just both ways but all ways....


    I think where most of us have problems is imagining what it means that our physical dimensions are set into time. We seem to assume because we have three dimensions that we perceive in time, then the nature of the universe hinges on this time, and therefore on beginnings and endings which are time-constructs. If we take our own logical minds into consideration--our minds that must perceive beginnings and endings in order to be linear, logical and analytical, maybe we're just seeing what we want to see, rather than what is there: unbroken wholeness, without start and finish.
    "The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr

    http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta

    Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
  • CollinCollin Posts: 4,931
    cornnifer wrote:
    Perhaps, i'm mistaken, but wasn't Big Bang theory once used in attempt to DISPROVE God?

    I think you are mistaken.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    I have a hard time believing the universe is just 14 billion years old.

    And before that there was nothing.

    So I always theorized that the universe fluctuates. I was aware of the theory that the universe is expanding, I thought it was this woman, Henrietta something, that figured out a way to measure distance to stars. This is true, called "red shift" and the observations suggest it is so, but some observations apparently contradict that theory.

    However, my theory was that although the universe may be expanding, it doesn't exactly mean that it was once nothing.

    Perhaps the universe is the beginning. You can't make a painting without a canvas, right?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • qtegirlqtegirl Posts: 321
    Although that's their names, imaginary numbers are as real as any other number. Look it up.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number

    I've seen some arguments on here that because imaginary numbers are used to explain the big bang, therefore the theory is a load of crap, is incorrect. Attack the theory from another angle because "imaginary numbers" do exist. The term "imaginary" was used by Decartes because he didn't believe they existed. The same as people in the past didn't believe that the number 0 (zero) existed.
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    qtegirl wrote:
    Although that's their names, imaginary numbers are as real as any other number. Look it up.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number

    I've seen some arguments on here that because imaginary numbers are used to explain the big bang, therefore the theory is a load of crap, is incorrect. Attack the theory from another angle because "imaginary numbers" do exist. The term "imaginary" was used by Decartes because he didn't believe they existed. The same as people in the past didn't believe that the number 0 (zero) existed.

    Yea, I think the thing is, we can conceptualize the universe in ways without imaginary numbers.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    whew. I thought my sad lack of math knowledge was about to catch up to me.

    And infinity goes not just both ways but all ways....


    I think where most of us have problems is imagining what it means that our physical dimensions are set into time. We seem to assume because we have three dimensions that we perceive in time, then the nature of the universe hinges on this time, and therefore on beginnings and endings which are time-constructs. If we take our own logical minds into consideration--our minds that must perceive beginnings and endings in order to be linear, logical and analytical, maybe we're just seeing what we want to see, rather than what is there: unbroken wholeness, without start and finish.

    It was once believed that LSD provided us with an unfiltered view of reality.

    I wouldn't know though, I've never taken acid.

    One thing I am pretty sure of though, is that there is either nothing, or something. Either, this is all an elaborate illusion, or there always has been something and probably everything.

    I can't imagine a time with nothing, not even time, in it. A universe created by an entity existing outside the universe, for which it's self does not have a universe or any laws. The entity, having no beginning or end, but will. Why is that so much easier to believe?

    I would sooner believe the universe has no beginning and/or end, than believe some entity exists outside of it with no beginning or end, but also created the universe.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • cornnifercornnifer Posts: 2,130
    qtegirl wrote:
    Although that's their names, imaginary numbers are as real as any other number. Look it up.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_number

    I've seen some arguments on here that because imaginary numbers are used to explain the big bang, therefore the theory is a load of crap, is incorrect. Attack the theory from another angle because "imaginary numbers" do exist. The term "imaginary" was used by Decartes because he didn't believe they existed. The same as people in the past didn't believe that the number 0 (zero) existed.

    Actually, i wasn't trying to do that at all. i, personally have no problem with BB theory. i think more often than not, imaginary numbers are used to conceptualize a universe with no starting point. i'm by no means Will Hunting, but i think usually they are used to sort of "lube" the equations to get a desired mathematical result. If you want to get physical results, however, you must convert the numbers back into "real" ones.
    "When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Universe - Cosmology Quest - Part 1
    Universe - Cosmology Quest - Part 2

    As the first comphrehensive documentary to deal with major new approaches in non-bing bang cosmologies, it reveals several deep-rooted ... all theoretical and observational controversies.

    This is a fact, well hidden from university students and the general public, which is told with clarity and conviction: and potentially leading to the down-fall of the presiding Big Bang theory.

    The story is told by 16 world renown astronomers and cosmologist such as the legendary Sir Fred Hoyle, controversial cosmologists Geoffrey Burbidge and Halton Arp, philosopher and telescope designer John Dobson, astronomers Jack Sulentic, Jean-Claude Pecker, and Margaret Burbidge
    This is the video that sparked this thread.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Cool, I'm going to create life in my microwave, once I figure out how all this stuff works. Thanks to youtube I already know how to make plasma in my microwave :)

    Now I just need the right chemical compound.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Marie CurieMarie Curie Posts: 1,250
    Ahnimus wrote:
    I have a hard time believing the universe is just 14 billion years old.

    And before that there was nothing.

    So I always theorized that the universe fluctuates. I was aware of the theory that the universe is expanding, I thought it was this woman, Henrietta something, that figured out a way to measure distance to stars. This is true, called "red shift" and the observations suggest it is so, but some observations apparently contradict that theory.

    However, my theory was that although the universe may be expanding, it doesn't exactly mean that it was once nothing.

    Perhaps the universe is the beginning. You can't make a painting without a canvas, right?

    the Universe IS expanding, that's been proven already
    “Life is life everywhere. Life is in ourselves and not outside us. There will be men beside me, and the important thing is to be a man among men and to remain a man always, whatever the misfortunes, not to despair and not to fall - that is the aim of life, that is its purpose.”
    Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Marie Curie wrote:
    the Universe IS expanding, that's been proven already

    NO IT HASN'T. It's speculative.
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • Marie CurieMarie Curie Posts: 1,250
    Ahnimus wrote:
    NO IT HASN'T. It's speculative.


    really? you must have missed all the papers with all the data that gave direct observational evidence to prove the expansion of the universe
    “Life is life everywhere. Life is in ourselves and not outside us. There will be men beside me, and the important thing is to be a man among men and to remain a man always, whatever the misfortunes, not to despair and not to fall - that is the aim of life, that is its purpose.”
    Fyodor Dostoyevsky
  • AhnimusAhnimus Posts: 10,560
    Marie Curie wrote:
    really? you must have missed all the papers with all the data that gave direct observational evidence to prove the expansion of the universe

    Using cosmological redshift, yes.

    That isn't proof to me, the fact that Big Bang theory denies plasma cosmology any say, is indicative.

    Isn't it possible that our interpretation of redshift is false?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Sign In or Register to comment.