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

[Pimppeter2]

No, it has to many flaws and doesn't quite make sense

But it has some standing, seeing as it is a theory.

Its on the right path

 

[Macgyvercas]

I believe the Big Bang theory, but with a twist. I like to imagine that a supreme being with one of those push down detonators caused it and then let the universe evolve from there.

Spoiler: one of these things

 

[hypercube]

I think it's the best theory we have at the moment.
Stuff like the cosmic microwave background and and its associated anisotropy is pretty hard to explain with other theories that don't require an enormous amount of special tweaks n stuff.

I think it's pretty hard to explain the structure and state of the Universe without involving a 'Big Bang' - in other words a state of hot compactness some very long time ago.

But (and it's a big 'but'!) the reall question is where the initial state came from.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

I dunno if it is true or not and don't really care... but I know one thing, it is a hilarious show...

 

[hermes]

I have my doubts about the big bang theory, but not enough knowledge to give you an alternative... So, let's just say I believe its the most plausible theory we have came out with so far.

 

[heyheysg]

That's not how science work, you can't vote on what's right or wrong.

This topic might as well be

"Do you believe that the Theory of Relativity is true"

Of course it isn't perfect, but it works for us most of the time, like how Newton's Laws worked for us at one time. They are both just trying to explain the universe in a rational manner that aids human understanding as well as helping us improve our lives.

Science is simply us humans getting less wrong one step at a time.

 

[pernastin]

Not sure if this is a bad question or not... I'm no science pro, not in the least but,

What is the source of the light used to determine the age of bodies found, the "Centre of the Universe"? Or something else?

Generally only stars, heated gas, quasars or other energetic stuff emitting light (Or x-rays and gamma rays and such, which are for all intents and purposes light.) can be seen really far away, so no outside light source is needed. Unless I somehow misunderstood what you're asking.

The "center of the universe" is quite nonsensical though. There wouldn't be any way to define the center of the universe as far as I understand. Saying the universe ends at some point wouldn't really make any sense, seeing as the universe basically is everything we could conceivably observe. From any given point you will see the same amount of universe around you, so it's kind of like thinking there's a center to the earth's surface. Which, as far as I know, there isn't, despite what some of the nuttier nationalists would no doubt have us believe.

 

[iJosh]

I do believe it went something like that. There was some kind of explosion that created everything. But it's still hard to grip the idea that everything that now exists was compacted into a single molecule or atom or whatever it was.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Yes. The Big Bang is what happened. No questions asked.

 

[Maze1125]

No, it has to many flaws and doesn't quite make sense

I can take it you have a PhD in General Relativity then?

 

[crudus]

I didn't vote correctly because I thought you were talking about the show ><. But yeah, I think the Big Bang is pretty close to what happened. I'm not a scientist but I know that the evidence points to that.

 

[Abe_Z]

I believe the "Big Bang" to be false due to this one comparison: If a printing press exploded, you wouldn't get Webster's Dictionary.

 

[darthzew]

I have a hard time buying it. I feel like all of the evidence for the Big Bang is entirely read-into, as in it could go to explain something else. If we're going to argue logic, it seems just as likely, if not less likely, than an intelligent designer.

 

[NDWolfwood5268]

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.

 

[Supreme Unleaded]

Im very uminformed on this subject, personaly i dont really care too much how we where created. So there should be a "I really don't care" option. Anything that I say that is trying to sound smart is probably wrong because as i said im uniformed.

 

[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.

 

[ShawnRiles]

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've actually never heard that, but I quite like it.

OT: To the main topic I'd vote It's pretty close, because Pararaptor's statement seems quite believable.

 

[ma55ter_fett]

Right off the bat im making it clear. I'm not a scientist! Any sarcastic remarks implying such will be met with the wrath of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all his noodle-y-ness!
SO here is how I understand the theory. Gravity is a trait of matter. Meaning matter is attracted to other matter. Matter can be turned energy and energy to matter, but never can it be destroyed completely. As such, matter and energy must have always existed in some way.
Question
Now, since matter is affected by gravity does that mean energy is also affected by gravity? And does gravity stop having an effect after a certain distance?(im pretty sure it doesnt but ive never really asked...)

Anywho, now since our universe is filled with matter and all and its all attracting each other....it makes since it will all eventually come together right? Now all that matter and energy coming together can only mean one thing. A BFE(Big F@%#ing Explosion) I mean, just look at our earth or sun. Tell me matter and energy isn't volatile.
Now for the point.

Why do people not think this theory correct or even possible? Do you think it sounds about right?

Matter can't be turned into energy, matter when it reacts with other matter or changes state (gas/liquid/solid) either releases or absorbs energy.

Also most astronomers think that all the galaxies are accelerating away from each other.

 

[teisjm]

ofc gravity attracts energy, energy is matter as well.
electrons, photons etc.
Black holes have a strong enough gravitational pull to pull in photons (light particles) and keep them there, which is why no light espaces a black hole, hence the name.

Also, theres some theory, about matter beeing able to spontaniously form, as long as anti-matter is formed as well, in equally large portions.

Dunno if i belive in Big bang theory, i'm not a scientist, so who am i to say, but i think it's our best guess so far.

 

[NDWolfwood5268]

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?