Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

There might be no Big Bang?


  • Please log in to reply
40 replies to this topic

#31    MarkSteven

MarkSteven

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 218 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 20 February 2008 - 01:55 PM

space is more than just 3 dimensions, even Einstein talks about that. if an observer on earth is viewing the movement of the stars and these starts appear to be moving outward from the observer, what time frame are they viewing these stars, a couple hundred years. that's weak considering the age of everything. how about their directions, they appear to move out but what exact direction and path, how long were they on this path. there isn't enough evidence to prove anything so they dream up an educated guess calling it a theory. some of it is on track but the rest is just speculation and we may never know.

the shear scale of the universe isn't something that we can comprehend, the fact that we don't even know what dark matter is proves that we know very little of what's really going on. but this is what makes the search interesting, there's always something new to look for.

edit, i just thought of this - if there was a big bang, why is there so much in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field? one would think that there would be less stuff the farther you go outward. so even if the stuff that we can observe is moving outward, we still can't say where it all started.

Edited by MarkSteven, 20 February 2008 - 05:57 PM.

Warning:
anything that i say is based on my personal feeling of the topic at hand.
my opinion is mine and i'll try to be clear and to the point. i may be wrong, but that's my opinion.

This forum is called Unexplained-Mysteries, however some people think it should be called "Everything is provable with science"

check this - http://www.astralvoyage.com

#32    lostinamysteriousworld

lostinamysteriousworld

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 24 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2008

Posted 21 February 2008 - 01:51 AM

I JUST LOVE THREDS IN ALL CAPS!!!! (sarcasm)


#33    Torgo

Torgo

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,239 posts
  • Joined:26 Oct 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Graduate School

  • I aM tOrGo... I tAkE cArE oF tHe PlAcE wHiLe ThE mAsTeR iS aWaY...

Posted 21 February 2008 - 05:46 AM

MarkSteven on Feb 20 2008, 08:55 AM, said:

space is more than just 3 dimensions, even Einstein talks about that. if an observer on earth is viewing the movement of the stars and these starts appear to be moving outward from the observer, what time frame are they viewing these stars, a couple hundred years. that's weak considering the age of everything. how about their directions, they appear to move out but what exact direction and path, how long were they on this path. there isn't enough evidence to prove anything so they dream up an educated guess calling it a theory. some of it is on track but the rest is just speculation and we may never know.

the shear scale of the universe isn't something that we can comprehend, the fact that we don't even know what dark matter is proves that we know very little of what's really going on. but this is what makes the search interesting, there's always something new to look for.

edit, i just thought of this - if there was a big bang, why is there so much in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field? one would think that there would be less stuff the farther you go outward. so even if the stuff that we can observe is moving outward, we still can't say where it all started.


I take issue with you calling the models produced by observing the motions of stars and galaxies speculative.  What possible reason would there be for the universe to LOOK like everything is expanding when that isn't really the case?

As for the Hubble Deep Field - you are suffering from the most common misconception of the big bang.  The theory is NOT AT ALL that there was some dense kernel of matter that exploded.  The idea is that in the distant past the universe was in a very  hot and dense state, and that since that time space has expanded and the distances between any two given points have expanded (gravity overcomes this on small scales but on scales larger than galaxies the expansion usually wins).  As near as we can tell matter was always embedded in space and space has been pretty well homogenous throughout the history of the universe.

I again refer people back to the age of the universe thread.  It contains a lot of the evidence for the big bang.


#34    REBEL

REBEL

    Esoteric Seeker

  • Member
  • 6,559 posts
  • Joined:09 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:=Australia=

  • ''GONE FISH'N, BRB...''

Posted 21 February 2008 - 10:20 AM

Emma_Acid_88 on Feb 18 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

The difference between a fact, a theory and a hypothesis is really important one, and one that would clear up all manner of misunderstandings on this board. Lets not forget that something can be a fact and a theory at the same time. Take gravity - that it exists is a fact, the best reason we can come up with as to why is a theory.

Hows that possible Emma; something can be fact & theory at the same time?
You have a theory and it remains a theory until such time that it becomes an established fact, be it scientific or whatever(?)


I'm sensing a conspiracy theory looming behind all this anyway...







#35    Atheist God

Atheist God

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,438 posts
  • Joined:10 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Winnipeg, Canadistan

  • At war with the evil Drug Enforcement Agency for over a decade!

Posted 21 February 2008 - 01:49 PM

REBEL on Feb 16 2008, 05:49 PM, said:

I thought THE BIG BANG was/has always been a ''theory'' a ''hypothesis'' if ya like.
What makes anyone think it's ''factual'' anyway?


Observation and math that fit the theory.

Quote

space is more than just 3 dimensions, even Einstein talks about that. if an observer on earth is viewing the movement of the stars and these starts appear to be moving outward from the observer, what time frame are they viewing these stars, a couple hundred years. that's weak considering the age of everything. how about their directions, they appear to move out but what exact direction and path, how long were they on this path. there isn't enough evidence to prove anything so they dream up an educated guess calling it a theory. some of it is on track but the rest is just speculation and we may never know.


Well Einstein didn't believe in quantum physics either... also he said there were 4 not 3 but who's counting right?

While you may choose not to accept valid science due to ignorance we puny humans know a lot more about how things work then in Einsteins time. The scientific community accepts the big bang theory as fact and merely call it theory to be politically correct.

Posted Image

A site I write my own articles. sw-gm check em out.

#36    MarkSteven

MarkSteven

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 218 posts
  • Joined:14 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin

Posted 21 February 2008 - 02:48 PM


Quote

observing the motions of stars and galaxies speculative


i did not say that, i said that in our lifetimes of observing, we can not say where it all started. so far we have only been able to view a very small bubble of our local universe. we can not say logically that "this is the way it is and there is no other explanation"

we do know more then Einstein did, are we so sure, he just died before he could complete his work, work that will never end. but even those theories are just a scratch on the surface. the reason we search, learn and grow. if everything was answered there would be no debate, everyone would just agree with one another.

for one thing, science often proves itself wrong, then a correction is made. so we'll see in 500 million years, who knows what we will have found out. oh wait, what's the life of the sun btw lol.

big bang = the very start of existence of our universe, "the world is flat" is also what we used to think.

as for the Hubble comment, the scientific community had no idea the Ultra Deep Field would have so much in it, millions of galaxies per square inch. mind boggling, we have a lot to learn.

Warning:
anything that i say is based on my personal feeling of the topic at hand.
my opinion is mine and i'll try to be clear and to the point. i may be wrong, but that's my opinion.

This forum is called Unexplained-Mysteries, however some people think it should be called "Everything is provable with science"

check this - http://www.astralvoyage.com

#37    I Am Will

I Am Will

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 269 posts
  • Joined:24 Jan 2008

Posted 21 February 2008 - 02:50 PM

do believe there are 8 dimensions calculated with string theory

there are surely an infinite number of possibilities other than the big bang? i believe it will be very difficult for us to prove what actually happened or happens as it may occur frequently in other dimensions. so i wouldnt bank 100% that the big bang occured

it is merely the conclusion from the evidence we have now.

Edited by I Am Will, 21 February 2008 - 03:09 PM.


#38    REBEL

REBEL

    Esoteric Seeker

  • Member
  • 6,559 posts
  • Joined:09 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:=Australia=

  • ''GONE FISH'N, BRB...''

Posted 22 February 2008 - 12:29 AM

AtheistGod on Feb 22 2008, 12:19 AM, said:

Observation and math that fit the theory.





Well Einstein didn't believe in quantum physics either... also he said there were 4 not 3 but who's counting right?

While you may choose not to accept valid science due to ignorance we puny humans know a lot more about how things work then in Einsteins time. The scientific community accepts the big bang theory as fact and merely call it theory to be politically correct.


As i tried to explain earlier (i'm thinking only MID & Waspie may have picked up on it(?)...They're not actually basing the Big Bang on ''theory'' but a ''hypothesis'' according to Encarta® World English Dictionary & correct me if i'm wrong here but that would make it even less credible as a scientific fact eh? So therefore we're expected to believe in something thats really nothing more than scientific imagination?


#39    Sun Raven

Sun Raven

    Alpha & Omega

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,637 posts
  • Joined:05 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Spain

  • I am the master of my fate.
    I am the captain of my soul

Posted 22 February 2008 - 02:16 PM

REBEL on Feb 22 2008, 01:29 AM, said:

So therefore we're expected to believe in something thats really nothing more than scientific imagination?


It's not just scientific imagination.

Rebel, a theory, or a hypothesis if you want to call it, which provides observable evidence and data is not just scientific imagination. We find evidence and observable evidence of the Big Bang in every corner of the Universe where we look, also by the methods of research and scientific investigation.

Posted Image

Sun Raven


#40    REBEL

REBEL

    Esoteric Seeker

  • Member
  • 6,559 posts
  • Joined:09 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:=Australia=

  • ''GONE FISH'N, BRB...''

Posted 22 February 2008 - 02:40 PM

Alex01 on Feb 23 2008, 12:46 AM, said:

It's not just scientific imagination.

Rebel, a theory, or a hypothesis if you want to call it, which provides observable evidence and data is not just scientific imagination. We find evidence and observable evidence of the Big Bang in every corner of the Universe where we look, also by the methods of research and scientific investigation.


I understand Alex...but the Big Bang is not as yet 'proven fact', right? but still remains a  theory & or hypothesis?

lol! those two words are getting a hammering in here lol!



Theory:
1. rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice
economic theories.

2. speculation: abstract thought or contemplation

3. idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture

4. hypothetical circumstances: a set of circumstances or principles that is hypothetical
That's the theory, but it may not work out in practice.

5. scientific principle to explain phenomena: a set of facts, propositions, or principles analyzed in their relation to one another and used, especially in science, to explain phenomena




Hypothesis:
1. theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation
The hypothesis of the big bang is one way to explain the beginning of the universe.

2. assumption: a statement that is assumed to be true for the sake of argument
That is what would logically follow if you accepted the hypothesis.

3. antecedent clause: in logic, the antecedent of a conditional statement

Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition



EDIT:...maybe i'm looking at it all wrong....ignore this last post.  grin2.gif

Edited by REBEL, 22 February 2008 - 02:45 PM.


#41    MIB-Agent

MIB-Agent

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 134 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Location:Morgantown, West Virginia

  • Everything in the Universe is unique. It is the biggest place in reality, and is home to unlimited creatures and possibilities.

Posted 22 February 2008 - 04:08 PM

I never believed that the Big Bang theory was a good one anyways. But this probably will change the textbooks in schools if this is correct.

We protect extraterrestrial lifeforms, and protect humans from them. We enforce the Universal Law upon humans and aliens. We are "The Men In Black!"




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users