Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: Big Bang Theory

  1. #1

    Default Big Bang Theory

    The theory, not the series.

    According to an Associated Press poll, some of America's top scientists are "depress[ed] and upset" over the fact that a significant portion of the population expresses some doubt over what scientists consider to be "scientific facts". When it comes to the big bang theory around 51% of the population have some doubt. I have some doubts of my own.

    If we look at it in the simplest terms, scientists have determined that the universe is expanding and have concluded that the universe must have had a beginning and they can calculate when in the past this event occurred. So far so good. They go on to theorize that the entire mass of the universe started out infinitesmally small and began expanding faster than the speed of light. This is where my doubt kicks in. I doubt if there is any human on the planet that can actually understand what this means in scientific terms.

    We have been taught to believe that it takes infinite energy to accelerate mass to the speed of light, and also that time slows down for anything moving and, presumably, time stops when the speed of light is reached. These two things would seem to make it impossible for anything to exceed the speed of light. Science has a partial answer to these problems: Mass can move at or above light speed as long as it does not "communicate" with any mass it is moving away from at these speeds. Presumably this takes care of the infinite energy problem, although what is meant by "communicate" is hard to comprehend.

    Time is another problem. If we assume science is correct in that time slows down as the speed of light is approached, what happens when the speed of light is exceeded? Was the universe going backwards through time in the beginning? What would that even mean? I suppose we could dismiss the time problem as being more of a problem for time theory in general and not specific to the big bang theory. I could accept that.

    I still see a problem with the physics involved. Scientific understanding of physics seems to depend on understanding the "laws" governing atoms and subatomic particles and the relationship of these things to energy. I have no problem believing science has set a good foundation for understanding nuclear physics. The problem is, if all the combined mass in the universe started out smaller than an atom then this mass would not have been made up of atoms or subatomic particles as we understand them. In other words, the nature of this "mass" is beyond all scientific comprehension.

    My conclusion: Many of the details of the big bang theory are faith based beliefs rather than valid scientific theories.

  2. #2

    Default

    According to various polls, upwards to 20% of Americans believe that the moon landing was a hoax, around 20% believe that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by the United States Government, and 30% of America's don't know what The Holocaust was.

    The most revealing thing about polls is that an uncomfortable amount of people are idiots.

    I'm going to explain your problem here: YOU KNOW SHIT ABOUT PHYSICS. Reading things up on Wikipedia does not put you on the same playing field as the entire collective of physicists and able to question them. The bigger problem is that you so poorly understand how over your head you are, that you can't even begin to comprehend how wrong your 'criticisms' here are. What you hold is a belief and you seek to use a limited, uneducated understanding of a high level field of knowledge to find holes that can support your belief system. You aren't on a quest for knowledge, you are on a quest for affirmation, and that's how you fail the moment you began. More over, WHY do you bother being preoccupied with such things that you so poorly understand? They are beyond your set of knowledge. You are not going to enter any field of study to improve your understanding of this knowledge. So go do something else with your spare time, you'll be happier for it.

  3. #3

    Default

    See, I believe that God had a cold and sneezed a lot of the universe out his nose. Then the cold became a very bad flu and He got diarrhea and well, we are the result of that! My second statement is the Republican platform. "I"m not a scientist." Either way, ignorance is bliss.

    My own feeling is that the brain of man is so simple and feeble, that it is far beyond his capacity to understand how something could always exist, or come into existence from nothing? The fact that the universe is expanding can be measured, but how does one know if this is the first time it expanded? We are too temporal, in my opinion.

    And then there's the old series, Lexx. What about the dark universe? Yeah, answer me that!!!!!!

  4. #4

    Default

    Please cite sources.

    Science develops laws to explain what will happen, by making inductions based on what is happening. These laws have been replaced in the past, and might be replaced again. Any discussion of what happened in the unobserved past is an extraploation, hardly a fact.

    For example, were the universe created by an omnipotent and omniscient being seeking to give humans the opportunity to develop faith, with at least the illusion of free will, that being would need to create things in a maner consistent with some set of physical laws. (This would be the set of laws our set is developing towards.) Were it otherwise, the discrepancy between what happened and what is happening would force the acceptance of something outside of the physical laws, a supernatural. Believing then wouldn't be a matter of faith. This creator that, for his own reasons, didn't leave tool marks would be fully consistent with observations.

    Of course, it would be rejected by Occam's razor. However, Occam's razor isn't a physical law. We can say that the simpler explantion completely explains what we've seen so far (if you don't include the some exeptional accounts of "miracles"), but we can't say that the simpler expalantion is complete. To do so would be to claim that we've seen everything, and that would be unscientific.

  5. #5

    Default

    With an attempt to discuss this without the ad hominems, I do not understand the conclusion.

    First: This is a theory, and therefore up for discussion and agreement.
    Second: Polls are not a reliable source of information unless documented with sampling technique.
    Third: There appears to be a blending of several fields of study and again this adds to the agreement and debate.

    So there is a lot of interpretation that can be applied and thus conflict in results will occur.

    Understanding that there is a lot of the science behind this is out of my scope of practice and understanding. I do know that sub atomic/quantum physics have a lot of variables that have to be considered. This also goes into the realm of the production of light from the sun and that it takes 100k years for a photon of light to get from the nuclear fusion at the core to the surface of the sun.

    So then looking back at the "Big Bang" the argument goes to was it the end of a cycle or the actual start of the first cycle. Then the energy and gravitational factors that where there and what would have caused the catastrophic collapse of the contained system.

    The arguments could go on and on.

    So as far as the statement that The Big Bang Theory is faith based or science based is dependent to the philosophy that one wants to considered.
    Last edited by egor; 23-Dec-2014 at 21:52. Reason: spelling error

  6. #6

    Default

    DISCLAIMER: I am neither a scientist, nor someone who is studying/has studied science seriously. So I could be pretty wrong on some points here.



    Quote Originally Posted by egor View Post
    With an attempt to discuss this without the abhominums, I do not understand the conclusion.
    No offense, but I giggled a little here. Ad hominem is the phrase you're looking for.



    First: This is a theory, and therefore up for discussion and agreement.
    Not exactly. In science, a theory is an explanation for a phenomena that is well-supported by substantial evidence and repeated experimentation. Some well-known theories include the theory of evolution and the theory of general relativity.



    Second: Polls are not a reliable source of information unless documented with sampling technique.
    If you're saying what I think you're saying (that being that unless one knows how a poll was conducted it's wise not to trust the results), you're damn right.



    So then looking back at the "Big Bang" the argument goes to was it the end of a cycle or the actual start of the first cycle. Then the energy and gravitational factors that where there and what would have caused the catastrophic collapse of the contained system.
    There is no argument. There's "I don't know" and "Shit, I don't really know either." We don't really have much of anything to go on as far as whether or not the Big Bang was the One True Beginning or just a point on some cycle.



    So as far as the statement that The Big Bang Theory is faith based or science based is dependent to the philosophy that one wants to considered.
    Uh, no. Either it is science-based, or it is faith-based. Doesn't matter how you look at it. Using the definitions of the words faith and science, we can come to a conclusion (I'll give you a hint as to which conclusion is probably the correct one: OP doesn't have any semblance of a clue what he's talking about)

    What OP is doing is the same set of things he always does: 1) spend fifteen seconds skimming an article on wikipedia, 2) (deliberately or otherwise) misinterpret the meaning of said article, 3) maintaining that he's understood the subject perfectly, use said misinterpretations to make faulty and misleading claims about how elements of science are faith-based, and 4) ignore everything everyone says, maybe replying with "see? faith-based!" occasionally. The fact that we've had so many of these threads and so many other threads derailed for this nonsense has me wondering whether it's all just to fuck with us for some sort of cheap laugh.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by BitterGrey View Post
    Please cite sources.
    Just a note, this I thought was funny because you want us to cite this?



    Quote Originally Posted by dogboy View Post
    See, I believe that God had a cold and sneezed a lot of the universe out his nose.
    Not going to go looking on the internet for booger proof.

  8. #8

    Default

    Being Christian, most people automatically assume I don't believe any scientific theories. However, that couldn't be further from the truth.

    I believe science and religion work hand-in-hand. For example:

    The Bible says God created the universe in six days. Our days are defined as the time it takes Earth to make a full rotation. However, God is in Heaven, so His six days could be the 14 billion years it's taken the universe to get to now.

    I fully believe in evolution. We can see better traits being passed to newer generations today (animal breeders make their living on it).

    Some of the Biblical miracles could have been actual miracles, or there could have had scientific explanations behind them. I heard something about Moses parting the Red Sea a while ago; maybe he didn't really part the sea, but God just directed them to spot where the tide created a land bridge. When the Egyptians caught up to them, the tide rose and they were done for.

    I don't think God breaks the laws of physics to do His miracles. Some people think He's like a magician waving a magic wand around, but that's not the case (paraphrasing the Pope here).

    I'm not here to shove religion down your guys' throats. I believe in sharing my religion, but I won't force anything on you. I'm simply sharing my ideas on how religion and science work together.

  9. #9

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Snivy View Post
    Just a note, this I thought was funny because you want us to cite this?
    Not the thread, but the OP's source. (Maybe this one?). Too often people will read whatever interpretation they wish into a statistic, and this migration will increase with the distance from the source, as more add their 'take' on it. By the time something reaches wikipedia, it might be more fiction than fact. The position of the ap.org article is remarkably different from the OP, and is quite reasonable: More distant & less repeatable statements are less widely accepted.

  10. #10

    Default

    I think the same way as the OP. What scientists have come up with is just theory. Just like all the other things that were mentioned. 9/11, The moon landing. There is no proof that the Big Bang Theory is correct, that's why it's called a theory. No one has come up to the podium and said that the Big Bang Theory IS the answer. People are so gullible that they believe anything that's said to them. Creationism is a joke (no offense). I don't think anyone knows the truth, we probably never will and it will always be a theory because no one ever seen the beginning of the universe.

    The one thing to think about though is what we discovered about the universe so far, is just breath taking. The earth is nothing compared to the universe, one grain of sand on earth can't compare to the size of the universe. Our entire solar system isn't even a grain of sand compared to the universe. This thing is so huge that we can't see an end nor a beginning. Even The powerful machines we use to try to comprehend gives so little.

    The more you learn, the less you know. Remember back in the day when the world believed the universe revolved around the earth? When everyone thought the earth was flat?

    Theories will never end because there's no event to watch unfold. We want facts so desperately that we try to come to conclusions about what we can see, or experiment with.

Similar Threads

  1. Big Bang Theory diaper reference (Spoiler alert)
    By noctis in forum Diaper Talk
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-May-2014, 16:07
  2. Big Bang Theory
    By FriedTurkey in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-Dec-2011, 20:13
  3. Thoreau Theory?
    By diaperedteenager in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-Dec-2009, 11:46
  4. Spark Theory
    By T00L in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 31-Dec-2008, 06:24
  5. How's this theory?
    By Honeywell6180 in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-Oct-2008, 04:30

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.