Why are the craters on the Moon all perfectly(ish) circular? AND, is the 'Big Bang' theory of the bi

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

kin

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hardly <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>DrRocket, you have in your head a notion of the universe's creation that goes against the very basic principles of your science. Conservation of Mass and Energy. If we are going to start believing in your creation myth, we may as well start accepting the possibility of Perpetual Motion.</p><p>The fact of the matter is that although we both agree that there was an event called the Big Bang, I deny you the luxury of stating uncontested that this event created the universe and time itself. I will concede that this event likely warped the space-time continuum and altered its conditions (as all events do). However, to state that time and the universe itself simply appeared out of nothing is against the very Law that the theory attempts to establish and explain.&nbsp;</p><p>One could just as easily state that prior to the Big Bang the universe consisted of a series of membranes that collided and resulted in the Big Bang, shaping the universe as we know it today. </p><p>However, accepting this explanation (or many others in string theory) can not qualify as "creation of the universe" as at its very core there is a universe existing prior to it. It is a universe in which there are a series of membranes and it is simply a denial of any logical thought to suggest that the Big Bang created the membranes that caused the Big Bang. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
K

kin

Guest
<p>I've claimed this thread in the name of Kin.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

DrRocket

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>DrRocket, you have in your head a notion of the universe's creation that goes against the very basic principles of your science. Conservation of Mass and Energy. If we are going to start believing in your creation myth, we may as well start accepting the possibility of Perpetual Motion.The fact of the matter is that although we both agree that there was an event called the Big Bang, I deny you the luxury of stating uncontested that this event created the universe and time itself. I will concede that this event likely warped the space-time continuum and altered its conditions (as all events do). However, to state that time and the universe itself simply appeared out of nothing is against the very Law that the theory attempts to establish and explain.&nbsp;One could just as easily state that prior to the Big Bang the universe consisted of a series of membranes that collided and resulted in the Big Bang, shaping the universe as we know it today. However, accepting this explanation (or many others in string theory) can not qualify as "creation of the universe" as at its very core there is a universe existing prior to it. It is a universe in which there are a series of membranes and it is simply a denial of any logical thought to suggest that the Big Bang created the membranes that caused the Big Bang. &nbsp; <br />Posted by kin</DIV></p><p>You must be a philosophy major.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
M

Mee_n_Mac

Guest
<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I've claimed this thread in the name of Kin.&nbsp; <br />Posted by <strong>kin</strong></DIV><br /></p><p>I think it's good form and historically required that you plant a flag when you claim territory.&nbsp; </p><p>I see no flag.</p><p>Claim rejected.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>
 
K

kin

Guest
<br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/10/a9b608d6-ecaa-4aff-aa5b-fbcc4caa6c8e.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think it's good form and historically required that you plant a flag when you claim territory.&nbsp; I see no flag.Claim rejected.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by mee_n_mac</DIV><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

derekmcd

Guest
<p><strong>"DrRocket, you have in your head a notion of the universe's creation that goes against the very basic principles of your science. Conservation of Mass and Energy."</strong></p><p>At T=0 there were no laws around to be violated.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>"If we are going to start believing in your creation myth, we may as well start accepting the possibility of Perpetual Motion."</strong></p><p>Nice non sequitur.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>"The fact of the matter is that although we both agree that there was an event called the Big Bang, I deny you the luxury of stating uncontested that this event created the universe and time itself."</strong></p><p>Do you have a model or theory with a better description?&nbsp; Until then, you are contesting nothing.</p><p><strong>"I will concede that this event likely warped the space-time continuum and altered its conditions (as all events do). However, to state that time and the universe itself simply appeared out of nothing is against the very Law that the theory attempts to establish and explain."</strong></p><p>I think I covered that in my first response.&nbsp; Prior to 10^-33 seconds, we simply don't know what the laws and/or physics were. </p><p><strong>"One could just as easily state that prior to the Big Bang the universe consisted of a series of membranes that collided and resulted in the Big Bang, shaping the universe as we know it today."</strong></p><p>One could easily state that.&nbsp; However, without supporting evidence, it is irrelavent to the BBT.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>"However, accepting this explanation (or many others in string theory) can not qualify as "creation of the universe" as at its very core there is a universe existing prior to it."</strong></p><p>No one has accepted them, therefor they are irrelavent.&nbsp; They may be elegant mathematical models, but they are supported with zero observational evidence.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>"It is a universe in which there are a series of membranes and it is simply a denial of any logical thought to suggest that the Big Bang created the membranes that caused the Big Bang."</strong> &nbsp; </p><p>Not quite sure I follow.&nbsp; I don't believe any theoretical physicist working with brane theories believe that the big bang created membranes.&nbsp; Rather, it is believed that the big bang is a consequence of branes.&nbsp;</p><p>I like flags... got anymore I can take?&nbsp;</p> <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>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY