Poll: The Big bang theory, Do you think its true?

[Emperor Inferno]

I think it's plausible, and a good theory based on the known facts, but it's impossible to actually know.

One little bit of scientist's evidence that supports this theory is the fact that over a long period of time, stars and other various celestial bodies have been shown to be moving apart from each other, as if out from a single, common point. Now, the theory that links this evidence to the big bang theory is that since there is no matter or gravity in empty space to stop it, it means that the big bang sent everything out with such force, that the momentum is still carrying all matter in the universe out from the point of origin. Gravity comes into play when the scientists theorize that eventually, the force of gravity will overpower the force of outward momentum, and the universe will begin to shrink. After a while, gravity will draw everything back in to a single gargantuan mass of matter/energy. When this ball of everything reaches it's critical density, it will explode, and the cycle will begin anew.

That's the theory, anyway. Which, for me raises one big theological question:

Are we the first universe?

 

[Hamster at Dawn]

I don't think it is entirely true but I think it's the closest anyone's got to the truth.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Well...
I doubt that there was nothing before the Big Bang, because that breaks physical law. There's a better theory I've heard which states that the universe goes in cycles: Everything is pulled into singularities which eventually merge, & electrostatic repulsion balances out the gravity & you get a Big Bang. Rinse & repeat.

I *heard* that some physicists thing that matter can, technically, arise from nothing. Physics is weird, note that some of them say that the Higgs Boson particle is coming back in time FROM THE FUTURE to destroy the Hadron Collider, like you going back in time to kill your grandpa as a teenager before he has your dad.

Just saying, some of those guys with PhD's think it's possible, but with my knowledge, I think cycles are more believable as well.

This is a problem with modern science. They, rather like the priests of antiquity, can say just about anything and people will take them seriously. The notion that the LHC is sabotaging itself, from the future, is daft. The possibility that they might just be wrong, or that they just spent their money building the worlds largest paper-weight, never crosses the mind of a scientist who is too deep in his books to notice the world outside.

There is also the arrogance of modern science. Within the life-time of people alive today, people were still using horse drawn carriages and aeroplanes with 4 wings and a propeller was innovative technology. No novacaine for our parents, oh no. Dentists had some ice and some pliers. People are still alive today who were at school when the Big Bang theory was first mooted, and yet here we are, us humans, knowing everything there is to know about everything. We know how the universe started, how long it has been around, and where it is going, all on the basis of some theoretical physics and some static on the TV.

In the future there will be other theories, and there will be other explanations, that people go around claiming as "truth". You can count on it.

Op:- You mentioned a deity in your poll, which is unfortunate, as the Big Bang theory does not conflict with the possibility of a god existing. Indeed the theory was created by a Catholic priest.

Yes, well, this all seems rather rambling, but as Darwin said of the eye, the correct answer may not be readily apparent by 'looking at the world' around us. You seem like the sort that says 'science doesn't know everything' when it doesn't claim to. Of course there will be other theories, that's how we learn new things, that's why there's a poll option for "the big bang theory covers MOST of it", there are still unknowns.

As for the HLC, I agree, I was just mentioning that the idea is out there that some of these guys hold and I don't know enough physics to aptly debate it. String theory and all.

I guess all in all, I'm saying, what's your point?

Erm... I wasn't rambling. I am saying "science doesn't know everything" because lately it has claimed to. That was my point.

Ever seen a monkey use a stick? Well they do. Otters use rocks. Some birds use twigs. Those tools work for their purpose. Ever seen a monkey use a stick to repair a Boeing 747? Could a bird use its twig to build a PC? If not, why not? Answer that, and read back at what I was saying, and hopefully my point should become clearer.

This LHC that doesn't work because it is saboutaging itself from the future, these black holes we know exist because we can't see them, this Big Bang that definitely happened because of back ground radiation... the notion that the LHC is a big waste of money, that black holes are grit on the telescope, and that the cosmic back ground radiation is the result of an intergalactic pirate radio station, are just never considered.

Science has gone faster and further in the last century than it has in all the thousands of years before it, but in so doing has become extraordinarily arrogant and self assured. It is time to take some introspection and consider that we really don't know what the answer to all this is, and that the tools we are using to find out are hopelessly primitive.

 

[Maze1125]

This is a blue shift galaxy, and while I can think of a few explanations for this I can't rule out the possibility that it disproves Hubble expansion. Under that big bang based theory all galaxies would be moving outwards, with those closer to the 'outer shell' moving faster then those on the inside. That would mean all galaxies would have to have a red shift, as they are moving further away from us or we are moving further away from them as we race towards the mythical outer shell.

Yet, blue shift galaxies exist. There are galaxies more to the center then ours, are moving outwards at a faster rate then they should be. They could be 'strafing' towards us but that also means we have to revive how the universe is moving.

After all galaxies don't just get up one day and decide they will move sidewards instead of outwards, the way the big bang is meant to be pushing them.

That's easily explained by random fluctuations in the early universe. There are universes that travel away from us faster than they "should" too.

If everything moved uniformly, that'd be more of a proof of an intelligent designer than the Big Bang.

The big bang theory is no different. An explanation we have to what we have observed, to be revived when we have better means of observation.

And, as I explained before, that's nonsense. Better observations have never disproved something that has already been observed, they've only ever provided better clarity on thing we already knew. We knew that atoms contain protons, and when we got better electron microscopes we didn't disprove protons, we merely discovered new depth to their structure, in the form of quarks.

Yes, we might gain new clarity on the Big Bang, but we are never going to disprove it. At least, not unless we find something that requires us to forget everything we think we know about physics and start again from scratch.

Of course, you quite likely write me off as someone who treats science as a religion but, if you do, that just says more about your closed mindedness than mine.

 

[Maze1125]

Science has gone faster and further in the last century than it has in all the thousands of years before it, but in so doing has become extraordinarily arrogant and self assured. It is time to take some introspection and consider that we really don't know what the answer to all this is, and that the tools we are using to find out are hopelessly primitive.

Science isn't like that. Yes, many people who follow science are like that. But the scientific community as a whole balances itself out.

No serious scientist believes the LHC is sabotaging itself from the future, and quite a few think it's a waste of money. There are many different possible explanations about how black-holes might or might not exist and we don't have enough data to confirm one way or the other.

And, as for the Big Bang, we have far far far more evidence of that than just cosmic background radiation. Essentially every observation and bit of theory developed over the last 200 years conforms with it. Yes, it's possible there's a huge intergalactic conspiracy by aliens to confuse us, but then, if you're going to start thinking along those lines, you might as well conclude that everything is a fabrication and that you're just a brain in a jar.

 

[GonzoGamer]

What's interesting is if you look at the mythology from many ancient cultures, you'll see that they also believed in the big bang. If you look at the creation myths in the Quran, the Bible, or even Ovid's Metamorphosis, you see a pretty accurate (for the era) description of the big bang.

What I find myself contemplating is weather we created the gods or if they created us. What's clear is that (wether we like it or not) they are there now and we are stuck with them.

 

[Kubanator]

Erm... I wasn't rambling. I am saying "science doesn't know everything" because lately it has claimed to. That was my point.

Science by definition can't know everything, and a scientist who does claim to know everything is not a scientist.

Ever seen a monkey use a stick? Well they do. Otters use rocks. Some birds use twigs. Those tools work for their purpose. Ever seen a monkey use a stick to repair a Boeing 747? Could a bird use its twig to build a PC? If not, why not? Answer that, and read back at what I was saying, and hopefully my point should become clearer.

Eventually, the monkey will evolve to the point where it can develop tools to repair a Boeing. Now what you want me to say is that humans are the creator, and everything has to have a creator because that's the way it works on Earth. What the metaphor actually says is that we will inevitably transcend godhood. The Boeing was created by something physical, humans. The world was also created by something physical, the universe. The universe could have been formed a number of ways, such as quantum fluctuations. Your metaphor only applies when the creator is physical, not intangible.

This LHC that doesn't work because it is sabotaging itself from the future, these black holes we know exist because we can't see them, this Big Bang that definitely happened because of back ground radiation... the notion that the LHC is a big waste of money, that black holes are grit on the telescope, and that the cosmic back ground radiation is the result of an intergalactic pirate radio station, are just never considered.

Even failures help science. For example, if the LHC continues to fail, we may try to detect the interference, the Higgs-Bison particle, that is consistently causing it, making it a success. Or try to discover how the interference can be avoided. It's not a blind endevour that requires faith, it's one that works on reason.

intergalactic pirate radio station

Hmmm, maybe because there's no pattern to the transmissions, no reason that it would be equal in all directions, and pardon me saying this, there a distinct lack of evidence that there is any central location of this radiation. Simply because you don't want something to be true, does make it false. Science is based on fact, not desires or beliefs,

Science has gone faster and further in the last century than it has in all the thousands of years before it, but in so doing has become extraordinarily arrogant and self assured. It is time to take some introspection and consider that we really don't know what the answer to all this is, and that the tools we are using to find out are hopelessly primitive.

It's not arrogance if science is that important, and it's not self assurance if it's true.

This is a problem with modern science. They, rather like the priests of antiquity, can say just about anything and people will take them seriously. The notion that the LHC is sabotaging itself, from the future, is daft. The possibility that they might just be wrong, or that they just spent their money building the worlds largest paper-weight, never crosses the mind of a scientist who is too deep in his books to notice the world outside.

Yes, a scientist can say anything, and everyone accepts it as true. Oh wait. That's religion. As I recall, scientist who make incorrect theories without evidence get disproved by their peers and thrown out of any reputable scientific forum. When they provide reproducible evidence, then people test it, and find that it's false, eliminating the spread of false information. See cold fusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

Why is it impossible for the LHC to destroy itself? Especially when, under all proven scientific principals, the LHC should be operational.

There is also the arrogance of modern science. Within the life-time of people alive today, people were still using horse drawn carriages and airplanes with 4 wings and a propeller was innovative technology. No Novocaine for our parents, oh no. Dentists had some ice and some pliers. People are still alive today who were at school when the Big Bang theory was first mooted, and yet here we are, us humans, knowing everything there is to know about everything. We know how the universe started, how long it has been around, and where it is going, all on the basis of some theoretical physics and some static on the TV.

So because science has progressed so quickly, it can't be true?

In the future there will be other theories, and there will be other explanations, that people go around claiming as "truth". You can count on it.

That's a really

Op:- You mentioned a deity in your poll, which is unfortunate, as the Big Bang theory does not conflict with the possibility of a god existing. Indeed the theory was created by a Catholic priest.

Using Occam's razor, it precludes the existence of God. Also, the idea that it matters WHO created the idea is pointless. Perhaps our priest was feeling unfaithful, or maybe he's intelligent. Regardless, the fact that a priest created it changes nothing.

 

[Eatbrainz]

Like a great philosopher once said:

"Things happen, What the hell."

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Science has gone faster and further in the last century than it has in all the thousands of years before it, but in so doing has become extraordinarily arrogant and self assured. It is time to take some introspection and consider that we really don't know what the answer to all this is, and that the tools we are using to find out are hopelessly primitive.

Science isn't like that. Yes, many people who follow science are like that. But the scientific community as a whole balances itself out.

No serious scientist believes the LHC is sabotaging itself from the future, and quite a few think it's a waste of money. There are many different possible explanations about how black-holes might or might not exist and we don't have enough data to confirm one way or the other.

And, as for the Big Bang, we have far far far more evidence of that than just cosmic background radiation. Essentially every observation and bit of theory developed over the last 200 years conforms with it. Yes, it's possible there's a huge intergalactic conspiracy by aliens to confuse us, but then, if you're going to start thinking along those lines, you might as well conclude that everything is a fabrication and that you're just a brain in a jar.

I don't think I explained myself very well.

My issue wasn't really with any scientist (although there are a few arrogant ones around, and I am sure you know who I am talking about), but rather with the perception of science in the eye of contemporary humanity. Take this thread for instance. People left, right, and centre going on about quantum vaccums and Einsteins theory of elderly relatives, hurrying back and forth from here to wikipedia to type yet more ignorance on a subject that nobody really knows anything about.

We have not even visited another planet yet. We have never actually seen another star up close. We have sent probes to other worlds which are only (in astronomical terms), within sneezing distance, and found naught but boulders. Yet we know all of these things about how the universe started, how it will end, where it came from, and all that jazz? I mean... seriously? And all this crap I keep on hearing about dark matter. Has anyone seen it? Of course not, that's how we know its there! Eh?

My point is that scientists simply throw some of these ideas out there because they need a thought model that fits the data, having no illusions that they are most likely wrong, and that they will need further study in order to discover what the truth of the matter is. But people think that when a scientist says something, that means what he says is true, fact, gospel, verbatim, da bizz, etc.

Ever seen a monkey use a stick? Well they do. Otters use rocks. Some birds use twigs. Those tools work for their purpose. Ever seen a monkey use a stick to repair a Boeing 747? Could a bird use its twig to build a PC? If not, why not? Answer that, and read back at what I was saying, and hopefully my point should become clearer.

Eventually, the monkey will evolve to the point where it can develop tools to repair a Boeing. Now what you want me to say is that humans are the creator, and everything has to have a creator because that's the way it works on Earth.

No I didn't. Not even a little bit. What I am saying is that trying to unravel something as vast and complex as everything in the universe can't be done with a few telescopes and a bit of superglue. Understand?

The universe could have been formed a number of ways, such as quantum fluctuations. Your metaphor only applies when the creator is physical, not intangible.

Ever seen one of these quantum fluctuations? Got any prove? Any evidence? If it is intangible, it doesn't exist.

 

[LeonLethality]

yeah I believe it's true and I refuse to answer this poll it's really unnecessary since opinions can vary from the poll >.>

 

[Maze1125]

My point is that scientists simply throw some of these ideas out there because they need a thought model that fits the data, having no illusions that they are most likely wrong, and that they will need further study in order to discover what the truth of the matter is. But people think that when a scientist says something, that means what he says is true, fact, gospel, verbatim, da bizz, etc.

Yes, that is a big problem and you're right, a lot of things fall under that, like black holes, dark matter and the graviton.

But the Big Bang isn't one of those things.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

My point is that scientists simply throw some of these ideas out there because they need a thought model that fits the data, having no illusions that they are most likely wrong, and that they will need further study in order to discover what the truth of the matter is. But people think that when a scientist says something, that means what he says is true, fact, gospel, verbatim, da bizz, etc.

Yes, that is a big problem and you're right, a lot of things fall under that, like black holes, dark matter and the graviton.

But the Big Bang isn't one of those things.

The Big Bang theory isn't one of those things to a scientist, but it is the public. The Big Bang does not deal with the creation of the universe, but with the history of the universe from the very first moment, and what created the Big Bang is a whole different kettle of fish. But many people here are going on about what started it. Take a look anywhere in actual Big Bang physics and you will find this point is never mentioned, simply because it isn't part of the theory, and there is no data or evidence for or against anything preceeding the Big Bang. All we have comes from that point.

 

[ben---neb]

*Waves Creation flag around*

*Ducks and waits for the missiles*

Dont worry, we all know that the flying spaghetti monster created all.

*Laughs in a a slightly strained manner at hearing the same joke yet another time.*

Too be honest theses debates are beginning to bore me. I believe in God therefore Creation. A lot of people don't believe in God therefore don't believe in creation. My argument against your joke therefore runs as follows:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and earth" Genesis 1v1.

And by God I mean a holy, righteous, perfect, unchangable, loving, judging, all powerful, almighty, all knowing spiritual being that far transcends our feeble intelligence.

 

[Maze1125]

My point is that scientists simply throw some of these ideas out there because they need a thought model that fits the data, having no illusions that they are most likely wrong, and that they will need further study in order to discover what the truth of the matter is. But people think that when a scientist says something, that means what he says is true, fact, gospel, verbatim, da bizz, etc.

Yes, that is a big problem and you're right, a lot of things fall under that, like black holes, dark matter and the graviton.

But the Big Bang isn't one of those things.

The Big Bang theory isn't one of those things to a scientist, but it is the public. The Big Bang does not deal with the creation of the universe, but with the history of the universe from the very first moment, and what created the Big Bang is a whole different kettle of fish. But many people here are going on about what started it. Take a look anywhere in actual Big Bang physics and you will find this point is never mentioned, simply because it isn't part of the theory, and there is no data or evidence for or against anything preceeding the Big Bang. All we have comes from that point.

Yes, I see what you mean, I agree completely with that.

 

[DisturbiaWolf13]

Of course. Our whole universe was in a hot dense state, then nearly fourteen billion years ago expansion started.

Wait...

made me grin.

 

[PxDn Ninja]

I believe the BBT could be possible, but it has a few holes in it. Where did the original particles that "banged" into each other come from?

Matter has the unique nature of being permanent. Matter can't be created or destroyed, just changed. First lesson we were ever taught in physics.

Keeping that in mind, we have an issue with the Black Holes in space. Matter cannot escape them, so where does it end up? Current physics can't describe a black whole without going into abstracts and imaginary numbers.