Big Bang? Where's the Proof?

Thinker_of_many_Things · Jun 13, 2008

See, I don't see the logic in a "Big Bang". What started this "Big Bang"? A little dense ball that blew up? That makes no sense at all because that brings up the question, where did this "dense ball" come from? "God"? Well then what created 'God"? I don't see how this could happen, what triggered it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Mee_n_Mac · Jun 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>See, I don't see the logic in a "Big Bang". What started this "Big Bang"? A little dense ball that blew up? That makes no sense at all because that brings up the question, where did this "dense ball" come from? "God"? Well then what created 'God"? I don't see how this could happen, what triggered it? Posted by Thinker_of_many_Things</DIV> There's been a plethora of threads concerning BB theory and it in regards to God, Evolution and the start of everything.  The answer to your question as to what caused the BB or what came before it is ... we don't know.  Probably never will, probably can't ever know.  I can't speak to the "logic" of it but there's plenty of evidence. There are also competing theories as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> -----------------------------------------------------Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, STOP ! </div>

redbert · Jun 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> ..Well then what created 'God"? .. Posted by Thinker_of_many_Things</DIV> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argumentor <ol><li>Things exist. </li><li>It is possible for those things to not exist. </li><li>Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist. <ol><li>Something cannot bring itself into existence, since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical. </li></ol></li><li>There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence. </li><li>An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence. </li><li>Since the universe exists, it must have a cause. </li><li>Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things. </li></ol>Some of the defintions of God can be the "uncaused first cause" or the "Prime Mover" <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

qso1 · Jun 13, 2008

See, I don't see the logic in a "Big Bang". What started this "Big Bang"? A little dense ball that blew up? That makes no sense at all because that brings up the question, where did this "dense ball" come from? "God"? Well then what created 'God"? I don't see how this could happen, what triggered it?There is no proof of the big bang, just evidence and mathematics that tend to support the BB theory better than other theories at this time. If you read the literature on theories like the BB, you'd see that its rarely if ever regarded as "Proven".  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

SpeedFreek · Jun 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It is possible for those things to not exist. Whatever has the possibility of non existence, yet exists, has been caused to exist. Something cannot bring itself into existence, since it must exist to bring itself into existence, which is illogical. There cannot be an infinite number of causes to bring something into existence. An infinite regression of causes ultimately has no initial cause, which means there is no cause of existence. Since the universe exists, it must have a cause. Therefore, there must be an uncaused cause of all things. Some of the defintions of God can be the "uncaused first cause" or the "Prime Mover" Posted by redbert</DIV>Yeah, everything has to have a cause except the first ever thing - that cosmological argument uses a very strange logic if ever I saw it!Everything need a cause so what caused the universe?Something else.What caused that something else?Something else.<....2 hours later....>Okay, so what caused that something else?Nothing caused it - it needs no cause. ?!?!?  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

derekmcd · Jun 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yeah, everything has to have a cause except the first ever thing - that cosmological argument uses a very strange logic if ever I saw it!Everything need a cause so what caused the universe?Something else.What caused that something else?Something else.<....2 hours later....>Okay, so what caused that something else?Nothing caused it - it needs no cause. ?!?!?  Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV>It's turtles all the way down...  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

redbert · Jun 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yeah, everything has to have a cause except the first ever thing - that cosmological argument uses a very strange logic if ever I saw it!..Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV> yeah; Plato and Aristolte the "lightweights" of logichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument#Origins_of_the_argument http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/?page_id=116"Plato’s contribution to philosophy includes ideas relevant to the philosophy of religion. In Plato’s Laws is the earliest surviving fully developed cosmological argument"     <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Jun 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It's turtles all the way down...  Posted by derekmcd</DIV> ROFL! <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

SpeedFreek · Jun 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>yeah; Plato and Aristolte the "lightweights" of logic Posted by redbert</DIV>The philosophy of religion has a logic all of its own. Addressing the Big-Bang, the modern (Kalam) version of the cosmological argument is <ol><li>Whatever begins to exist has a cause.</li><li>The universe began to exist.</li><li>Therefore, the universe had a cause.</li></ol>Ok, if 2 is true (and it seems to be, for our observable universe), then in reference to point 1, whatever ultimately caused the universe is something that never began to exist. Either it always existed, or it never existed - it is "outside" of time or it is nothing at all.Is it logical for something to have always existed?Is it logical for something to exist outside of time? (Clue: define what it means to exist)Is it logical for nothing to have caused the universe?Now then, modern cosmology presents us with a few theories for the origin of the universe, things like M-Theory or Loop Quantum Gravity. These are at present no more or less valid than the existance of a god and as such can be treated at least with the same level of credulity. These theories fit with our current observations but we cannot scientifically test them as of yet, if ever. Of course, we cannot test for the existance of a god either.There is no logical reason why the proposed causes for our universe in M-Theory (multi-dimensional "membranes" that "clashed together" and caused our universe) or in Loop Quantum Gravity (a previously collapsing universe) cannot be part of a system that has either always existed or exists outside of time! Logically, they have equal footing with the existence of a supernatural force that created our universe and exists outside of time and so never began!In fact, any vaguely valid model has the same logical validity in that sense. If I say simply that the universe must have been "spawned" somehow from an overlying meta-universe that exists in different dimensions to ours and never began, it has the same weight.Logically, if something can either exist forever, can never have had a beginning, can exist outside of time, then so can something else!Actually, I tend to think the simplest answer is actually the simplest answer - Nothing caused the whole caboodle - somewhere along the line, it all ends up causing itself.Doesn't that seem the most logical of all?<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

redbert · Jun 13, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.. I tend to think the simplest answer is actually the simplest answer - Nothing caused the whole caboodle - somewhere along the line, it all ends up causing itself.Doesn't that seem the most logical of all? Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV> Actually it doesn't. "very strange logic if ever I saw it"“Nothing comes from Nothing, and Nothing ever could”—Maria   Sound of Music  <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" />  It is infinite regression that seems illogical. ex: "turtles all the way down"Somewhere along the line there needs to be an "uncaused first cause" seems the more logical choice vs. "Nothing caused the whole caboodle"  If you were a scientist in 1927 and a Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaître introduced the Big Bang theory for the origin of the universe, (he called it his "hypothesis of the primeval atom". and “a day without a yesterday&rdquo

would you have rejected it (as most did) as religious/ philosophical  nonsense?  So….in 2008, is the “everything came from nothing” theory without any religious implications?   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

SpeedFreek · Jun 14, 2008

Yes, I expect I would have rejected it as philosophical nonsense then as I do now. The Big-Bang does not state that something came out of nothing, that is simply what some people infer from it. It only states that everything used to be hotter and closer together and we can track that back only so far. It makes no guesses as to the origin of the universe either way, it stops where the physical science stops.The idea that it implies the universe had a beginning has no bearing. If we take that to mean it requires a cause, then that's fine. Just as we can never track back to the beginning using science, we can never track back past it to a previous cause. We can suggest solutions, for sure, but they are all mere speculation (and that includes the existance of a god).What we cannot do is apply logic to the situation, which is why the "cosmological argument" is disingenuous and this is the point I have been trying to make. You cannot apply logic to an illogical situation which is what the origin of the universe seems to be. To write a list of bullet points with "if x is so then y must be true" is a pointless exersize when applied to the origin of the universe, as logic (as we know it) completely breaks down at that origin.This is exactly the reason why some people feel the need to believe in a "supernatural" cause for it all. In once sense the origin seems to require a supernatural cause - the cause (if there is one) has to be outside the nature of what happens in our universe. It is the religious context that I see no need for - why does it all have to have some meaning? That is the most illogical part.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

derekmcd · Jun 14, 2008

SpeedFreek is correct in that the whole argument on what was going on prior to T=10^-33 seconds is simply unknown and will remain so unless we find new physics that would be a "Theory of Everything" type breakthrough.  The cosmological arguments starts with a false premise that the universe actually has a 'beginning'.  We don't know that, so it is nothing more than pure speculation.About the most applicable description you will find of the very early universe that is relevant is that it was in it's lowest state of entropy at one point, then entropy increased.  There's nothing that states all the matter of the universe simply appeared out of nothing... nobody can make that statement. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

a_lost_packet_ · Jun 14, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>See, I don't see the logic in a "Big Bang". What started this "Big Bang"? A little dense ball that blew up? That makes no sense at all because that brings up the question, where did this "dense ball" come from? "God"? Well then what created 'God"? I don't see how this could happen, what triggered it? Posted by Thinker_of_many_Things</DIV>Just a stab at an answer:Imagine that you are somehow able to view what happened.  You're in a platonic space, looking at the process as an observer (which has meaning all its own, but we'll skip it for now.)You see all manner of weird things going on.  You're not in Kansas anymore.  In fact, you're not in our Universe at all.  You're "elsewhere" and the Rules, as you knew them, do not exist in the same way.  Time is different.  Matter is different.  The Laws of up/down/sideways are all skewed.  Yet, you have the benefit of being able to see the entire multiverse in toto.  Luckily, in your small confined space, the Rules exist to allow you to exist and, at least, understand the information you are seeing.  For some reason, specifically for this post as a matter of fact, you can translate what is occuring into ideas you can understand. You see a maelstrom of strange shapes and colors.  We're not talking tiny either.  They're the size of infinitex2.  That's big.  While not exactly moving, they seem to be growing, shrinking, undulating, reacting in some weird chorus of light and energy.   Occassionally, you see a tiny flash as a number of these ginormous things come together.  This doesn't happen all the "time."  Sometimes, it seems as if multiple shapes and lights move through each other with no discernable effect at all.  Yet, you focus on one tiny, infintessimal area and watch as a number of these things/lights/energies grow together.  <Flash> You see it!  You zoom in as quickly as you can and move "into" the flash before it vanishes like all the others.10-43 seconds later, you're inside our Universe in a realm where movement makes sense and time seems to be a real thing rather than something occassionally imagined.  You're now witnessing the birth of the Universe from the "inside."  You try to remember what happened from the time you entered the light to 10-43 seconds afterwards but it gets fuzzy and extremely difficult to understand.  For some reason, the Laws, as you know them, of the space you are in don't really like talking about such tiny units of time.  You try to look out, back at the maelstrom you were in and find that, as you assumed with all the other disappearing "flashes" you saw earlier, that realm is no longer completely accessible.  You're now completely bound with the chains with which you were born.  You're in isolated 4D space now and very thankful for it.

The weather outside was frightful..Note: That's just one summation of one family of ideas.  There are many others. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> I put on my robe and wizard hat... </div>

tomorows_scientist · Jun 17, 2008

well there is some proof in a way, that the univese is constantly expanding. (to my knowledge unless somone has proven other wise by now lol i dont keep updated much) so if you put this process in reverse then eentually it must lead back to beeing all togeather. if you understand what im saying. another sign of proof is (once again this is an old discovery and it may of been proven wrong by now) that there is radiation still flying around in space perhaps from the after math of such a large explosion. (This was discovered during the cold war i do beleive by american's the original thought was that the soviets could of been testing nukes in space, but this was of course not true.). The radiation had already been there. I also had a qustion on this, could the radiation not be caused by the sun ????.... the only way we could discover this is if we had some kind of a space craft that could go multiple times the speed oflikght to literally see back in time if we just fly outwards away from the center of the universe so that the light (picture) from what happend would just be catching up with us so we could see it. (see my discussion about this idea of mine)      But besides these facts i cannot think of any other reason why this could of happend. For all we know the universe could be a constant like einstein had originally thoerized. But the problems with that was what i sad above. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Jun 17, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>       another sign of proof is (once again this is an old discovery and it may of been proven wrong by now) that there is radiation still flying around in space perhaps from the after math of such a large explosion. (This was discovered during the cold war i do beleive by american's the original thought was that the soviets could of been testing nukes in space, but this was of course not true.). The radiation had already been there. I also had a qustion on this, could the radiation not be caused by the sun ????.... Posted by tomorows_scientist</DIV>Actually, the Cosmic Background Radiation which is the "light" left over from the Big Bang was discovered by two Bell Labs scientist as unexplained noise (hiss) when using giant horn antennas. There was no thought that the soviets were doing it. It was just unexplained noise. You probably have it confunsed with Gamma Ray bursts, which were discovered by satellites launched to detect nuclear explosions. They detected gamma rays coming from space instead of the earth.And no, there's no  chance any of this could be confused with radiation coming from the sun. The Sun only covers 1/2 degree of the sky.  The other sources come from all over the whole sky. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

SpeedFreek · Jun 18, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>well there is some proof in a way, that the univese is constantly expanding. (to my knowledge unless somone has proven other wise by now lol i dont keep updated much) so if you put this process in reverse then eventually it must lead back to beeing all togeather. if you understand what im saying. Posted by tomorows_scientist</DIV>Yes, I understand what you mean, but it is not enough for us to assume simply that it "must lead back to being all together", we have to see if we can test this theory somehow - to see if it is possible for it to have all been back together. Replicating the conditions of the early universe is what they build particle accelerators like CERN for!  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>another sign of proof is (once again this is an old discovery and it may of been proven wrong by now) that there is radiation still flying around in space perhaps from the after math of such a large explosion. Posted by tomorows_scientist</DIV>Yes, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. Using the data built up over the years using things like particle accelerators, scientists worked out when the universe reached a certain temperature (which was a function of how close together everything was - it was very hot to begin with but as it expanded it cooled down) photons that were previously bound with other particles would have "decoupled" and moved independently through the universe for the first time. This is theorised to have happened around 380,000 years after the Big-Bang and it marks the time when the universe first became transparent - before this time the universe was opaque, full of a kind of plasma going through diffferent transitions as it cooled. No light was emitted until the CMBR was emitted. Looking backwards in time, the CMBR represents the now cooled remnants of a "wall of light" all around the edge of our observable universe, beyond which we cannot see.  Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> the only way we could discover this is if we had some kind of a space craft that could go multiple times the speed oflikght to literally see back in time if we just fly outwards away from the center of the universe so that the light (picture) from what happend would just be catching up with us so we could see it. Posted by tomorows_scientist</DIV>Well, apart from the problem of Special Relativity which has so far passed all the tests we can think up for it. Special Relativity tells us that nothing with any mass can be accelerated to the speed of light, let alone beyond it. Only massless particles like photons can travel at the speed of light and even they don't accelerate to that speed, they are created already moving at that speed. Apart from that, where is the centre of the universe? We are in the centre of our own observable universe, a sphere of space around us whose light has had the time to reach us, but we don't know how much larger the whole thing is, or where a centre might be, if there were one. In fact, we don't actually think the universe has a centre (or an edge for that matter!).When we look outwards, at the large distances all the galaxies seem to be moving away from us. Directly away from us. This is what we mean when we say the universe is expanding, or that space is expanding. It is not like an explosion and we are at the centre (what a coincidence that would be eh?), it is like a volume that expands so that all points inside move away from their neighbouring points at the same speed. As you look at more distant points they seem to recede faster and faster the further you look, but this effect is apparent whatever point in that volume you choose to put yourself upon. The view is the same wherever you are - the further away a galaxy, the faster it recedes. One possible model for this is a 4-dimensional sphere, where our 3D universe is represented by the surface of that 4D sphere. It is the 4D sphere that expands with our universe as its surface, so we have the possibility that however far you might theoretically travel, however fast, you will always be moving across the surface of that 4D sphere and therefore always be inside the 3D universe. It doesn't matter how fast you travel inside it, you will never see it from the outside.However small a volume it was to begin with, every point in space in the universe now was within that small volume then. All space itself was within that volume. Even if it were possible to move backwards in time, you would only ever see it happen from the inside.And there was nothing to see before the CMBR was emitted, or more to the point there were no free photons to detect. Wherever you might put yourself would be surrounded by some form of superheated plasma. Unless, that is, you intend to somehow move outside of the universe.... which might require the ability to travel in a 4th spacial dimension! <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

my_chemical_science · Jun 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>See, I don't see the logic in a "Big Bang". What started this "Big Bang"? A little dense ball that blew up? That makes no sense at all because that brings up the question, where did this "dense ball" come from? "God"? Well then what created 'God"? I don't see how this could happen, what triggered it? Posted by Thinker_of_many_Things</DIV> This is what seperates Science nerds [[who are cool]] from evolution nerds [[who are not cool, hence, i did not captilize the 'E']].... there is proof in everything learned from science, making it a F*A*C*T..aka fact..lol... there is no proof of evolution, making it a T*H*O*U*G*H*T..aka, thought. BTW, Pardon my spelling every other word wrong <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img id="efe57d21-8154-4fbb-93b5-7c5f4a8303be" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/3/efe57d21-8154-4fbb-93b5-7c5f4a8303be.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="197" height="106" /> If everyone treats you like a kid, you might as well act like one and throw the TV out the hotel window ~Gerard Way </div>

origin · Jun 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is what seperates Science nerds [[who are cool]] from evolution nerds [[who are not cool, hence, i did not captilize the 'E']]</DIV>The study of evolution is science. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.... there is proof in everything learned from science, making it a F*A*C*T..aka fact..lol...</DIV>Very little of science is considered fact.  Science usually talks in terms of theories.  We can use those theories to create processes, computers and space craft, but there are very few theories that we would go as far as to say are fact. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>there is no proof of evolution, making it a T*H*O*U*G*H*T..aka, thought. </DIV>No but there is a 'ton' of evidence that supports the overall general theory of evolution (ie that animals have evolved over billions of years), making the theory of evolution among the most robust theories in science.  Posted by my_chemical_science <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

MeteorWayne · Jun 23, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This is what seperates Science nerds [[who are cool]] from evolution nerds [[who are not cool, hence, i did not captilize the 'E']].... there is proof in everything learned from science, making it a F*A*C*T..aka fact..lol... there is no proof of evolution, making it a T*H*O*U*G*H*T..aka, thought. BTW, Pardon my spelling every other word wrong Posted by my_chemical_science</DIV> Your comments are off topic for the Ask the Astronomer forum, and unrelated to the topic of the thrad. There are plenty of active discussions in the appropriate places about evolution. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

vincentm · Jun 25, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>See, I don't see the logic in a "Big Bang". What started this "Big Bang"? A little dense ball that blew up? That makes no sense at all because that brings up the question, where did this "dense ball" come from? "God"? Well then what created 'God"? I don't see how this could happen, what triggered it? Posted by Thinker_of_many_Things</DIV> Your username contradicts this post....  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ---------------------------------- <img id="2645f485-13bb-45be-ba60-5bfc5dfaa2a0" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/10/2645f485-13bb-45be-ba60-5bfc5dfaa2a0.Large.png" alt="blog post photo" width="237" height="95" /> </div>

DrRocket · Jun 26, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>See, I don't see the logic in a "Big Bang". What started this "Big Bang"? A little dense ball that blew up? That makes no sense at all because that brings up the question, where did this "dense ball" come from? "God"? Well then what created 'God"? I don't see how this could happen, what triggered it? Posted by Thinker_of_many_Things</DIV>The logic behind the Big Bang is called General Relativity.  Part of your confusion seems to arise out of wondering what happened before the Big Bang.  The theory would indicate that there is no "before" -- time and space simply came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang.http://books.google.com/books?id=FPMJcixvFIUC&pg=PT238&lpg=PT238&dq=Hawking+and+Ellis&source=web&ots=01p4xGP9W4&sig=rgkU5s4GOuU_5gHfTDl3JjTVbsc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

my_chemical_science · Jul 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your comments are off topic for the Ask the Astronomer forum, and unrelated to the topic of the thrad. There are plenty of active discussions in the appropriate places about evolution. Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>I see my mistake. Thanks. but even though that WAS spam [[hee hee.. i really diddn't mean, i just didn't put it in the right way]]what i meant was that it's the same thing for the Big Bang, there is no proof. so it's a thought, not fact. Science is fact.

<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img id="efe57d21-8154-4fbb-93b5-7c5f4a8303be" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/3/efe57d21-8154-4fbb-93b5-7c5f4a8303be.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="197" height="106" /> If everyone treats you like a kid, you might as well act like one and throw the TV out the hotel window ~Gerard Way </div>

derekmcd · Jul 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I see my mistake. Thanks. but even though that WAS spam [[hee hee.. i really diddn't mean, i just didn't put it in the right way]]what i meant was that it's the same thing for the Big Bang, there is no proof. so it's a thought, not fact. Science is fact.

Posted by my_chemical_science</DIV>Science is a process of understanding how the physical universe operates around us.  Let me try to sum up the definitions in a quick paragraph:It is a fact that letting go of a brick will result in it falling.  The proof of this fact is dropping it on your foot.  The fact is governed by the universal laws of gravitation.  There are several such laws.  Laws of energy conservation, laws of thermodynamics, columb's laws.  Theories, such as General Relativity and the Big Bang, incorporate these facts, proofs and laws as an explanation for a myriad of other observations from which models, such as the LambdaCDM model, are built and tested.In other words.  There is no logic in saying there is no proof of the Big Bang.  Nor is there any logic in saying science is a fact.  The words are simply being misused.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

my_chemical_science · Jul 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Science is a process of understanding how the physical universe operates around us.  Let me try to sum up the definitions in a quick paragraph:It is a fact that letting go of a brick will result in it falling.  The proof of this fact is dropping it on your foot.  The fact is governed by the universal laws of gravitation.  There are several such laws.  Laws of energy conservation, laws of thermodynamics, columb's laws.  Theories, such as General Relativity and the Big Bang, incorporate these facts, proofs and laws as an explanation for a myriad of other observations from which models, such as the LambdaCDM model, are built and tested.In other words.  There is no logic in saying there is no proof of the Big Bang.  Nor is there any logic in saying science is a fact.  The words are simply being misused.  Posted by derekmcd</DIV>Then lets get back on topic. Big Bang? Where's The Proof? you speak of there being proof, so show it to me. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img id="efe57d21-8154-4fbb-93b5-7c5f4a8303be" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/15/3/efe57d21-8154-4fbb-93b5-7c5f4a8303be.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="197" height="106" /> If everyone treats you like a kid, you might as well act like one and throw the TV out the hotel window ~Gerard Way </div>

DrRocket · Jul 16, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Then lets get back on topic. Big Bang? Where's The Proof? you speak of there being proof, so show it to me. Posted by my_chemical_science</DIV>Go read The Large-Scale Structure of Space-Time by Hawking and Ellis. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Big Bang? Where's the Proof?

Thinker_of_many_Things

Guest

Mee_n_Mac

Guest

redbert

Guest

qso1

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

redbert

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

redbert

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

a_lost_packet_

Guest

tomorows_scientist

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

my_chemical_science

Guest

origin

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

vincentm

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

my_chemical_science

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

my_chemical_science

Guest

DrRocket

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page