Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Roy Perry

What if the bang was the spark of life?

56 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Roy Perry

God belief

What if the bang was the spark of life?

01\27\2016

We must look at Periodic table which has Elements to number 117 discovered today while I believe there more elements than 117 my theory would be 120 elements but that just me. Each element was a dust rock otherwise Hydrogen would join together with Hydrogen and Oxygen and join together with Oxygen there would at least 117 rocks out there. Otherwise everything would made solid Oxygen to hit a Hydrogen rock because it only nature like kinds come together.

But in the big bang they ran into each other cause the spark of life setting some on fire as mix with each other. The mixing up of elements was like a mixing a cake with a mixer that hit was the mixup that give us 117 elements that is the make up our earth. Which would light our stars and sun because the spark would set to fire gases known to start fires causing like materials to encircle each other!

Holding them in orbit from the motion of themselves some way creating the gravity of the Sun keeps the planet in their orbits. Each planet is made up from different elements and because the sun was light up otherwise set to fire by the big bang alone the stars we have sun light. Plants grow because of photosynthesis which were cause when our earth creative life by mixing up elements to made seed that evolve over time.

Man kind and animal kind were the next thing our earth creative we came out of the water that were join together to make up water the mixture two elements. So the spark of life was one mixing with another making fire which made plant life and water life. Just because we cannot see it does not mean it is not there.

Love Roy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

Well, I'll admit, science is definitely not my thing, so I cannot say for sure. I think it's an interesting thought. I want to wait and see how the science guru's see this.

:tu:

Some sparks of life were created by a bang in the backseats of vehicles.

Well............

.................... There's that too! ;):D:devil:

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Grandpa Greenman

I have come to think of the big bang as birth. One of many such birth in part of a living system. As I look at nature and how it works, I reason, if you look at the micro and expand it to the macro it looks, to me, like the universe functions as a living system. I might be wrong and there really isn't a way to prove it, but it is just a thought.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roy Perry

thanks GreenmansGod

yes it was big birth by science the bag is known has the birth of solar system

but if I call it a birth that might get somebody thinking of God

birth is too simple my friend but you are right

love Roy

Edited by Roy Perry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo

Well, the building blocks of life were created during the Big Bang, along with the building blocks of the entire universe. So, technically you're correct, just in a less direct way than you're proposing.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

'Set on fire ' ........ hmmmmm

If one postulated 'the void' as flammable and the big bang as a spark .... its not too bad an idea !

Its just ... on our scale and time frame ..... happening on a very large scale and a very 'slow' time .

A big slow motion explosion .... that is still happening.

But there seems to be a 'problem' with the formation of stars from compressed gasses. As the gasses compress, they generate heat and this tends to drive the gas 'apart' and overcome gravitational forces, so, in compute models, the gasses cant get to the stage where they ' ignite ' ( catch fire ;) ) into a fusion cycle.

But some scientist claims to have solved that .... but when one boils down his science to a simple statement he seems to be saying ; the gas cant ignite as when it compresses it generates heat which counteracts the compression of gravity but we have found that there is an attraction that can overcome this heat expansion and allow a star to form.

In other words - it should not be able to .... but it can.

Right ... this is like the newest thing ; no , big bang didnt do it, it was the 'big expansion' or 'inflation' theory ... we can explain all that much better :su

Ummmm ... guys .... where did all this expanding stuff come from in the first place ?

10824.jpg

Edited by back to earth
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

and God said " Let there be quantum fluctuations ! "

and there was Quantum Fluctuations

:su

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy

and God said " Let there be quantum fluctuations ! "

and there was Quantum Fluctuations

:su

God saw the quantum fluctuations and thought that it was unpredictable good.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
toast

Well, I'll admit, science is definitely not my thing,

So you are at the same level as the OP. Or above.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roy Perry

Thanks Emma_Acid, Podo, back to earth, Noteverythingisaconspiracy, and toast

Emma_Acid yes that my guess or theory and I see that you gave your guess here too

the·o·ry

[ˈTHēərē, ˈTHi(ə)rē]

NOUN

back to earth that cool my friend

Noteverythingisaconspiracy you believe in God cool

toast yes Stubbly_Dooright has high IQ

love Roy

Edited by Roy Perry
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Thanks Emma_Acid, Podo, back to earth, Noteverythingisaconspiracy, and toast

Emma_Acid yes that my guess or theory and I see that you gave your guess here too

the·o·ry

[ˈTHēərē, ˈTHi(ə)rē]

NOUN

back to earth that cool my friend

Noteverythingisaconspiracy you believe in God cool

toast yes Stubbly_Dooright has high IQ

love Roy

Just no, enough nonsense now.

Emma is correct, you took a wild guess, Emma is 100% correct, you are 110% wrong. As Emma pointed out, it took billions of years for stars to allow heavier elements to exist. The first spark of proto life was billions of years after the big bang, there were no planets at the time of the big bang, there were not even stars, they came along about 400,000 years later.

There is no need to guess and make things up when we know.

And I am quite positive that you misread noteverythingsaconspiracy's comment.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy

Noteverythingisaconspiracy you believe in God cool

Roy Perry I don't think that believing in god is cool. Quite the opposite in fact.

And I am quite positive that you misread noteverythingsaconspiracy's comment.

You are quite right psyche101. :tu:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid

There is no need to guess and make things up when we know.

The reason why I responded to this thread was that almost nothing hacks me off more than people who try and co-opt scientific ideas into religious ones.

If one postulated 'the void' as flammable and the big bang as a spark .... its not too bad an idea !

Its just ... on our scale and time frame ..... happening on a very large scale and a very 'slow' time .

A big slow motion explosion .... that is still happening.

You're making the mistake that almost every pop science show on TV makes. The big bang was not an explosion. An explosion is, among other things, identified by the pressure differences between an outward force and a container. It's a bomb's casing that causes it to explode, not the explosive material itself.

The big bang was an expansion. Not an explosion.

But there seems to be a 'problem' with the formation of stars from compressed gasses. As the gasses compress, they generate heat and this tends to drive the gas 'apart' and overcome gravitational forces, so, in compute models, the gasses cant get to the stage where they ' ignite ' ( catch fire ;) ) into a fusion cycle.

Do you have a reference showing that there is an issue with the current understanding of how stars form?

My understanding is that the force of the heat cannot overcome the force of gravity - hence a star forms.

Emma_Acid yes that my guess or theory and I see that you gave your guess here too

A theory is not the same as a guess. Your post was not a theory and mine was not a guess.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roy Perry

was you there because that the only I believe you

the meaning of theory is a guess just because called it a thoery means nothing

unless someone was there in the beginning

one would be really old

most of science is just guesses

conjecture con·jec·ture

NOUN

  • an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information: "conjectures about the newcomer were many and varied" ·
    speculation · guesswork · surmise · fancy · presumption ·
    [more]

    synonyms: guess · speculate · surmise · infer · fancy · imagine ·
    Oxford Dictionaries · © Oxford University Press
    assumption as·sump·tion
    NOUN

    • a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof: "they made certain assumptions about the market" ·
      supposition · presumption · belief · expectation ·
      acceptance · shouldering · tackling · undertaking ·
      Dormition.

    • archaic
      arrogance or presumption.
      there no real proof the meaning

Edited by Roy Perry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

If you're going to try to use science to explain something, then at least use the scientific definitions; otherwise, you're talking about one thing and the rest of us are talking about something entirely different.

a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained: "Darwin's theory of evolution"

Theory: a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena.

The operative word is tested. If you haven't tested it (or can't), it's not a theory. It's just a screwball idea.

The "Theory of Evolution" is misnamed. It depends on the Doctrine of Uniformity which is assumed, not proven. The original Doctrine of Uniformity called for slow, incremental change over billions of years. But at that time there was no way to prove that enough time had elapsed to bring about the world we see. The Doctrine of Uniformity was assumed simply because it made sense; it explains an awful lot of what's out there. Since Darwin's day, the meaning of uniformity has changed somewhat: it now means that no force has ever operated that isn't in effect now.

synonyms: hypothesis

A theory starts as a hypothesis. It's somebody's screwball idea that has been worded so it can be tested. If it fails the test, it's still a screwball idea. But if it passes, it's promoted. After a succession of tests and wide acceptance among the scientific community, it becomes a theory. It used to be that the appropriate professional group had to pass a vote declaring an idea a theory. That has sort of gone out the window in the last few years because votes can't determine Truth. Nowadays, the term "theory" is mostly applies to tested science in the aggregate.

][/b]

· thesis ·

A thesis is what a Masters student writes for his/her degree. It's an idea, probably true, but not necessarily. My Masters thesis was anything but earth-shattering. And that's the way with most of them. What a Masters student is doing is laying out an idea for further testing. Basically, a thesis is a hypothesis that made it past the first hurdle. It still has a long way to go before it becomes a theory.

These are all terms that indicate something less than certainty.

Conjecture: "What if ...." It's a line of reasoning based squarely on an assumption. The next step is to determine whether the assumption is true. If it isn't true, the conjecture isn't true. A supposition is the assumption on which the conjecture is based.

There is some scientific use for speculation. This might be the cause of that. It offers a listing of ideas that need testing.

"Ice storms and droughts may be confounded in tree ring series." I just tested that idea. They are. The test used something called Cohen's Kappa to test whether droughts and severe winter storms occurred in the same years. So even speculation has to be tested.

system of ideas ·

Essentially, modern scientific theories are more a system of ideas than a single theory. The "Theory of Evolution" consists of at least hundreds of tested ideas about how evolution works. When you see scientists arguing over Evolution, it is usually about some detail. Both sides accept the validity of the theory - they just don't agree about how to apply it. That's what makes Evolution such a solid theory: you can disprove one component idea, but the rest of the theory is untouched.

Science is the scientific method. It is not a result, but a way of arriving at a result, of basing beliefs on observations, of being able to objectively confirm a point of view.

Noteverythingisaconspiracy you believe in God cool

God is really irrelevant to science. Science is about physical phenomena. Because god is not physical, there is no way to study god scientifically. Believing in god may be cool, but so is believing in Truth.

And God said:

shutterstock_105432542.jpg?1343404330

And there was light.

Doug

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roy Perry

The belief in God is just theory also

it is assumption in God which is a belief

it is a conjecture in God which make it ideal

it is just a guess in God which mades it a theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roy Perry

God belief

Does the belief in God made it a proven theory?

01\28\2016

Just because some people believe in God it does make it a fact even if 99percent of the world believe in God it would not be a fact either. Does any theory become a fact because 99percent of world say so no it just a guess no more no less. Until a theory can be proven with 100 percent proof it just a guess someone has to be there to witness things.

We have theories of how the world begin there is bible theory, the big bang theory, and other theories that were replace my newer guesses or theories. A guess is still a guess no matter what you call it get honest to yourself a theory is just a guess nothing proven here. If God is just a guess that I believe in God is a theory also because a theory is a belief in something.

love Roy

Edited by Roy Perry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

The belief in God is just theory also

Sorry. It's not a theory. There are no tests with which to determine whether it is true.

The idea of god is speculation.

Doug

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

God belief

Does the belief in God made it a proven theory?

One can believe anything one wants, but that doesn't make it true.

Just because some people believe in God it does make it a fact even if 99percent of the world believe in God it would not be a fact either. Does any theory become a fact because 99percent of world say so no it just a guess no more no less. Until a theory can be proven with 100 percent proof it just a guess someone has to be there to witness things.

We have theories of how the world begin there is bible theory, the big bang theory, and other theories that were replace my newer guesses or theories. A guess is still a guess no matter what you call it get honest to yourself a theory is just a guess nothing proven here. If God is just a guess that I believe in God is a theory also because a theory is a belief in something.

love Roy

How many people believe something makes no difference to whether or not it is true. It is entirely possible for one person to be right while everybody else is wrong.

Remember: a theory is testable.

Doug

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roy Perry

I can i test God what proves that my test is not bias or your test bias

bias bi·as

NOUn


  • prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair: "there was evidence of bias against foreign applicants" ·
    prejudice · partiality · partisanship · favoritism ·
    The American Heritage® Idioms Dictionary
    Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
    Cite This Source
    you have closed mind
    closed-minded
    adjective
    1.having a mind firmly unreceptive to new ideas or arguments:
    It's hard to argue with, much less convince, a closed-minded person
    love Roy

Edited by Roy Perry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

I can test God what proves that my test is not bias or your test bias

bi·as

[ˈbīəs]

NOUN

Once again you use a technical term without knowing its meaning. "Bias" is simply the tendency of a process to produce a result that is consistently wrong by about the same amount in the same direction. Very hard to apply that term to god.

As for your "test" for god: I call your bluff. Present your test and the results.

As for "close-minded:" I am immediately ready to accept the result of any properly executed scientific test that shows the existence of god. Are you?

Doug

P.S.: I'd be careful about calling somebody biased. That charge is only too easy to throw at religious people.

Doug

Edited by Doug1029
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roy Perry

Top 10 Most Famous Scientific Theories (That Turned out to be Wrong)

One of the best aspects of science has always been its readiness to admit when it got something wrong. Theories are constantly being refigured, and new research frequently renders old ideas outdated or incomplete. But this hasn’t stopped some discoveries from being hailed as important, game-changing accomplishments a bit prematurely. Even in a field as rigorous and detail-oriented as science, theories get busted, mistakes are made, and hoaxes are perpetrated. The following are ten of the most groundbreaking of these scientific discoveries that turned out to be resting on some questionable data. It is worth noting that most of these concepts are not necessarily “wrong” in the traditional sense; rather, they have been replaced by other theories that are more complete and reliable.

Vulcan was a planet that nineteenth century scientists believed to exist somewhere between Mercury and the Sun. The mathematician Urbain Jean Joseph Le Verrier first proposed its existence after he and many other scientists were unable to explain certain peculiarities about Mercury’s orbit. Scientists like Le Verrier argued that this had to be caused by some object, like a small planet or moon, acting as a gravitational force. La Verrier called his hypothetical planet Vulcan, after the Roman god of fire. Soon, amateur astronomers around Europe, eager to be a part of a scientific discovery, contacted Le Verrier and claimed to have witnessed the mysterious planet making its transit around the Sun. For years afterward, Vulcan sightings continued to pour in from around the globe, and when La Verrier died in 1877, he was still regarded as having discovered a new planet in the solar system.

How it was Proven Wrong:

Without La Verrier acting as a cheerleader for Vulcan’s existence, it suddenly began to be doubted by many notable astronomers. The search was effectively abandoned in 1915, after Einstein’s theory of general relativity helped to explain once and for all why Mercury orbited the Sun in such a strange fashion. But amateur stargazers continued the search, and as recently as 1970 there have been people who have claimed to see a strange object orbiting the sun beyond Mercury. Amusingly, the entire would-be discovery’s greatest legacy today is that it inspired the name of the home planet of the character Spock from Star Trek.

read more yourself

http://www.toptenz.n...to-be-wrong.php

If theories are not guesses how can they be proven wrong?

I put God is my theory because I believe I can hear God

which your understanding that that good enough

But it not prove there is a God nor have you prove anything it just your belief in science to your God

Love Roy

Edited by Roy Perry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.