I was doing a little research myself..and i saw that the big bang happened as a cause of extreme speed in rotation with gases and chemicals and such. If it exploded though from rotation in one direction wouldnt all the galexies be spinning in all the same direction? Galexies spin any direction though. Isnt that a total contraditory? tell me please how this is plausable.
- Status
<font color="yellow">I was doing a little research myself..and i saw that the big bang happened as a cause of extreme speed in rotation with gases and chemicals and such. If it exploded though from rotation in one direction wouldnt all the galexies be spinning in all the same direction? Galexies spin any direction though. Isnt that a total contraditory? tell me please how this is plausable.</font><br /><br />A ferris wheel rotates, but that does not mean that its atoms rotate in the same direction. The spin of the smaller substances are not necessarily derived from the spin of the larger substance. It's not contradictory; it's more probable.
big bang could not have happened as a zero volume point has no movement, coordinate time or dimension. no past, present, or future. no ability to create a moment.<br /><br /> d = m/v, where d = Infinity. symbol of infinity here is "oo" <br /><br />density is oo = finite mass "n"/zero <br />oo = n/0 <br />oo = undefined <br /><br />n/0 is inoperable mathematically. <br /><br />a singular point which is defined as motionless, massless, and dimensionless can then suddenly have <i>any amount of mass it needs inside of it, of infinite density,</i> yet this is a contradiction of a <i>singular point</i> definition --and this can simply be skipped over and cannot be questioned in any circumstance as being illogical and a double-standard in our science.
I don't believe the BBT is meant to describe the origin of the Universe (i.e. it was infinately dense; zero volume point; there was nothing, then something; god made it). It is merely an attempt to describe what has developed over time AFTER it 'originated'. I would imagine that those scientists that subscribe to the BBT would have no illusions and be the first to admit they have absolutely no idea or credible evidence as to the origin. However, current theories, evidences, and proofs do support the reasons that the BBT is, far and away, the leading theory. The most simplistic statement that can best describe the BBT is: "In the very early history of the Universe it was very hot and very dense. Over time it has cooled and become less dense." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
observations, data, and requisite official interpretation of the soft-science gleaned <i>heavily imply total allegiance to BB theory and to the nearly only conclusion drawn from it's idea ---that a singular point of existence exploded into time, as this is what is deduced from popular cause and effect models leading up to the theoretical origin of the universe.</i> <br /><br />when it is popularized in print, regularly, that "we have now seen up to 10^-100 sec after the big bang when the universe was .0001nm in size...etc.." ---what do you think they are drawing the conclusion of? that the universe did not explode from a singlular point? <br /><br /><br /><br />
I hold true to my previous post. I think that if one researches from reputable resources they will find that the vast majority of physicists and mathameticians will say they don't know. Physics and math break down. There are things such as GUT, M-theory, TOE et.al. that attempt to explain the "very early universe". Any such resources that use terms such as "explode" or "singularity" are a layman's explanation or an explanation FOR the layman and are misleading. From my understanding, there is absolutely NOTHING that contradicts what is currently understood about the BBT. There are several weakness, however, to date, none of them have come to light yet. There IS plenty of evidence that does support the BBT. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
i see what you are saying, and have seen it. you are maintaining that science can say she is 1/2 pregnant. when a body of ideas that purport the evidence to lead back to a state that is of a very minute space and size, it leads to the conclusion, yet again, that it arose from a singular point, the "i don't know" factor notwithstanding, the origin is heavily implied to be a singular point. were it not such the case, then the moniker of big bang, implying explosion, should, then, be rescinded as to not mislead <i>further.</i> yet no such official revision has been made. <br /><br />to say otherwise, as a layperson or scientist, is then a complete cop out and evasiveness to escape fully committing to the premise, yet keeping the premise fully alive; touted as the most likely causation. and it is widely regarded as an act of creation from a singular point, expanding outwardly. how is this not germane to the fundamental premise of the big bang, a finite mass of infinite density, in zero volume? <br /><br />
No, you do not see what he is saying.<br /><br />To use your "she is half pregnant" analogy, science can say when the embryo has implanted, but not when conception has occured because there is presently no way of sensing that event when it occurs inside the human body. (Thus, the curious fact that a woman is said to be four weeks pregnant when she only ovulated two weeks ago; it is dated from the first date of last menstrual period, because that's the last reliable date available.) Science can't detect conception; it can only detect pregancy, which isn't actually the same thing; there's a short window of time between conception and the beginning of a pregnancy which is beyond the capabilities of medical science to detect in most cases. (The <i>only</i> time it can be detected is with in vitro fertilization, where conception occurs outside the human body, in a controlled laboratory environment.)<br /><br />It's a crude analogy, but the point is that the Big Bang theory does not tell us where the super-dense initial universe came from, or what occured in the very earliest days of the universe. It only describes what happened from that point to now. Detection capabilities cannot penetrate beyond the cosmic dark ages, and the equations worked out so far to describe the universe don't apply in such an extreme environment. They need to be refined, and that will take a long time. It will probably be the work of several generations.<br /><br />I don't think it's fair, or honest, to equate that to a "cop out". Basically, you are criticizing scientists for being honest and precise in what they are saying. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
i'm criticizing the widespread acceptance that the bb is "the main idea" that merely only needs to be refined and tweaked and re-modeled, when they sidestep any accountability or responsibility of committing to the only conclusion that can be drawn from the system that they propose that narrows down, ever narrower, to the moment of creation. their theory of "inflation" or cosmic expansion, ie, the bb, is predicated upon the idea that it had to come from a singular point, <i>whatever that may be, yet unknown. but is the main conclusion that is drawn from their theory.</i> <br /><br />so they say "we will reverse engineer a mathematical model for expansion of the universe, all the way down to the tiniest speck of dimensionality and space and size allowable before our laws "break down," alluding to a conclusion that the earliest version of the universe is yet smaller than the smallest speck we can model or be accountable for, yet we will not be resposible for actually admitting that this is what we are concluding." <br /><br />so what is that, then? such a position renders the entire theory unaccountable and suspect, as it is built upon a model that cannot ever be falsified, tested, or compared to physical reality. the mathematical model is not the reality. CMBR is not proof of the bb. redshift is not proof of it, nor is the existence of these phenomena necessarily "evidence" for it. and their basic model for the conditions for the bb is mathematically inoperable.
You belabor that point a lot, so I know that you feel there's a vast Big Bang conspiracy trying to squash anything that is contrary to it. But this conspiracy does not exist. Not all scientists favor the Big Bang, and it is frankly insulting to the very hard work of these men and women to deny their existence so repeatedly -- or to imply that they have no standing within science, since obviously they're not a part of the conspiracy.<br /><br />The Big Bang is not suspect because it fails to explain everything. It is not meant to explain everything. You might as well say that evolution is suspect because it fails to explain how life originated, but it's a false argument. It's like saying F=ma is suspect because it fails to explain nuclear interactions. You are holding it accountable for something beyond its scope.<br /><br />Whether or not it is correct is another matter. You are criticizing it for the wrong reasons, which means you are ultimately doomed to failure. There are good reasons to criticize it; I recommend you try looking for them. You'll find yourself having a lot more success that way. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
it's worse than a conspiracy. it's a lack of imagination. and a blindness. i propse that it is not only incorrect, it is entirely <i>false.</i>
And, pray tell, what are those proposals? Or are you, merely, playing 'devil's advocate' to stir the pot? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
you know me by now well enough, derek. i'm gonna stir the pot. at least with this one. other issues i can take or leave. but not this one. <br />
Let's hear some of your proposals against it. The BBT (in its truest form) has stood up against some pretty tough tests. Though, I may be gone for a few days and not be able to respond after today, I will be back. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>
radio wave doppler shifts from space craft are not "stretched by the fabric of space time." so neither is light. there is no such expansion of space. <br /><br />if light is just an extension of the EM wave spectrum, it's "doppler shift" will not be due to stretching space time, else <i>all waves are due to stretching fabric of spacetime.</i> <br /><br />so the sound of a passing ambulance is due to the "stretching fabric of spacetime" as is light. this is total BS. <br /> <br /><br />
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>radio wave doppler shifts from space craft are not "stretched by the fabric of space time." so neither is light. there is no such expansion of space. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />How can you say this? Without expansion of space, we'd fall right off the earth! The earth and the universe is expanding at the precise rate to press onto its surface and give us the illusion of gravity. It's gravity that does not exist! I love this theory...<br />
you're mixing up the ideas. it is the <i><b>earth</b></i> that expands, <i>not space.</i> space is infinite, as matter expands perpetually. <br /><br />the idea that sound/radio wave doppler shifts are due to increasing or decreasing distances, and the light red or blueshifting is <i>further due to this hypothetical "fabric of space-time" expanding," is erroneous and contradictory.</i><br /><br />
<i>due to this hypothetical "fabric of space-time" expanding," is erroneous and contradictory.</i><br /><br />Could you explain why you believe you are right here and everyone else wrong, instead of making a statement as if it were a fact?<br /><br />This *is* a Science message board.<br /><br />Thank you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
oh, no. the pleasure is all mine. <i>thank <b>you</b>, Yevaud.</i>
yes. i was remiss and too pompous in my tone. let me rephrase it:<br /><br /><i>in my opinion,</i> the idea that sound/radio wave doppler shifts are due to increasing or decreasing distances of relative motions of craft, and the light red or blueshifting is <i>further due to this hypothetical "fabric of space-time" expanding,"</i> is, <i>in my opinion,</i> erroneous and contradictory. <br /><br /><i>in my opinion</i> they are either both due to space-time streching, or they are not. yet, <i>in my opinion,</i> the mixing of the two ideas --increasing space-time strechting for one, and a doppler shift to due motion of the objects <i>only</i>-- is, <i> in my opinion,</i> a contradiction indicative of a misunderstanding of redshift. <br /><br /><i>in my opinion,</i> redshift is therefore <b>not</b> a measure of proof or evidence that "spacetime" is stretching and expanding. therefore, <i>in my opinion,</i> this can be removed from the list of "evidence" for "spacetime expansion." <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
yes. i was remiss and too pompous in my tone. let me rephrase it:<br /><br /><i>in my opinion,</i> the idea that sound/radio wave doppler shifts are due to increasing or decreasing distances of relative motions of craft, and the light red or blueshifting is <i>further due to this hypothetical "fabric of space-time" expanding,"</i> is, <i>in my opinion,</i> erroneous and contradictory. <br /><br /><i>in my opinion</i> they are either both due to space-time streching, or they are not. yet, <i>in my opinion,</i> the mixing of the two ideas --increasing space-time strechting for one, and a doppler shift to due motion of the objects <i>only</i>-- is, <i> in my opinion,</i> a contradiction indicative of a misunderstanding of redshift. <br /><br /><i>in my opinion,</i> redshift is therefore <b>not</b> a measure of proof or evidence that "spacetime" is stretching and expanding. therefore, <i>in my opinion,</i> this can be removed from the list of "evidence" for "spacetime expansion." <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Thank you. All I ask. Otherwise, it's not really a debate.<br /><br />FYI, no one is exempt from this standard here. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
the laws of physics say that if something that is spinning breaks apart all of the pieces will also spin the same direction<br />. a ferris wheel barely spins at any speed. that doesnt have enough speed or mementum to cause what im saying. example...you spin a bike tire horizontally anything on the tire liek mud will fly off spinning in the same direction. its got nothing to do with atoms. (sorry my vocabulary isnt as big as some of the ppl here )
)You know what, I'm just going to make you all very angry and mad, because deep down you all know that the theorys do not work, such as the BBT, and the reason for that is....because GOD made the Universe <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
lol funny thing is i believe the same thing i was just trying to see how ppl could defend that and i dont understand a word they said in response...not because theyre dumb...its because i seriously didnt understand a word...time to read the dictionary <br />
<br />You might consider that you're posting your religious beliefs in a Science forum. Take it to another forum, please.<br /><br />Thank you. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis: </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 155
-
-
-
SpaceX catches giant Starship booster during historic Flight 5 rocket launch and landing (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 27
-
The great silence: Just 4 in 10,000 galaxies may host intelligent aliens
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 113
-
Earth is wobbling and days are getting longer — and humans are to blame
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 75
-
We have the satellite data to show climate change is real. Now what?
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 56
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram