The Big Bang
Comments
-
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.0 -
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. - Voltaire0 -
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. - Voltaire0 -
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."0 -
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. - Voltaire0 -
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. - Voltaire0 -
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 Dostoyevsky0 -
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. - Voltaire0 -
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 Dostoyevsky0 -
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. - Voltaire0 -
Ahnimus wrote: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?
then tell me what's your interpretation of the red shift and give me some links to papers with experimental data proving your theory... you don't even know what red shift really is, do you?“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 Dostoyevsky0 -
Marie Curie wrote:then tell me what's your interpretation of the red shift and give me some links to papers with experimental data proving your theory... you don't even know what red shift really is, do you?
Yea, redshift is the expansion of light through time/space.
Or so it's assumed.
Check out NGC 7603
http://perso.orange.fr/lempel/ngc_7603_RS1.jpgI 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. - Voltaire0 -
Well I can't claim to be an expert in this, but my vague understanding of the beginning of the universe it this:
Time is relative, so even though we can say the universe is 13.8 billion years old, that is only in measurable years as per our perspective. Based on Einstein's Theory of Generalized Relitivity, with the compression of infinate matter and energy into an infinitately small space, time itself becomes infinite, therefore there was nothing before the big bang, because time did not exist in the way we can percieve it before the big bang.
In other words, one way of looking at it is that the very first instant of the big bang extends back to infinity.
I have no idea what that means, but that's the way someone once explained it to me."Science has proof without certainty... Religion has certainty without proof"
-Ashley Montagu0 -
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. - Voltaire0
-
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 you're going to critisize religious folks for their "faith," then you can't possibly be serious about that theory."Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-080 -
ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:If you're going to critisize religious folks for their "faith," then you can't possibly be serious about that theory.
I don't see how this is anything like religion.
I'm not worshiping a deity or anything like that.
The thing about Big Bang is, it estimates that a whole lot of something came from nothing, which leads people to believe in God, because something had to create it.
So, as you see, we will never be satisfied with finite things, something has to be infinite, typically this is God, whereas, I feel it's the universe that is infinite. However, following finite rules.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. - Voltaire0 -
Ahnimus wrote:I don't see how this is anything like religion.
I'm not worshiping a deity or anything like that.
The thing about Big Bang is, it estimates that a whole lot of something came from nothing, which leads people to believe in God, because something had to create it.
So, as you see, we will never be satisfied with finite things, something has to be infinite, typically this is God, whereas, I feel it's the universe that is infinite. However, following finite rules.
So in layman's terms, neither you, nor anyone else, have a clue. It doesn't lead me to believe that a God created it, but, given the existing scientific theories God doesn't sound like the worst idea anyone ever had."Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-080 -
ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:So in layman's terms, neither you, nor anyone else, have a clue. It doesn't lead me to believe that a God created it, but, given the existing scientific theories God doesn't sound like the worst idea anyone ever had.
I have a few clues, but I don't have a definite answer. My view is also plastic, an infinite steady-state universe is my inclination, however, I also acknowledge the possibility of a causal loop, which includes Big Bang. I just don't accept the existance of a God, though that may very well be the truth. I see through historical study of the nature of Gods that it is little more than a myth created by men.
"The truth is incontrovertable, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." - Winston ChurchillI 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. - Voltaire0 -
Ahnimus wrote:I have a few clues, but I don't have a definite answer. My view is also plastic, an infinite steady-state universe is my inclination, however, I also acknowledge the possibility of a causal loop, which includes Big Bang. I just don't accept the existance of a God, though that may very well be the truth. I see through historical study of the nature of Gods that it is little more than a myth created by men.
"The truth is incontrovertable, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is." - Winston Churchill
I'd give up both testicles to have that man be the leader of my country."Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-080 -
ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:I'd give up both testicles to have that man be the leader of my country.
I use the quote in a broad sense of course. I may be the mallice or the ignorance, just as any other might be. But the truth will always exist.
Churchill was a smart man, but he fucked up too, we are fallable creatures.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. - Voltaire0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 274 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help