I think the Horrendous Space Kablooie Theory is just a Scientific placeholder until they can come up with a more likely idea.
Poll: The Big bang theory, Do you think its true?
- Thread starter Lullabye
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I believe the Big Bang is, given what we know about the universe, very likely to be an accurate estimation of what happened. But since scientists today still can't come up with a solid explanation of what exactly happened during the Big Bang (only what happened right after it), or how it happened exactly, it's far from "the Truth". People who see science as a way of knowing "the Truth" are misguided, because that's not what science does. Treating science like this makes it no different from any regular religion.
And speaking of religion: I'm not a very religious man myself, but I do not believe that scientific theory (like the Big Bang) and religion are always mutually exclusive. They operate on completely different grounds, and one should never be used as a reason to disregard the other. I do not see why someone wouldn't be able to believe in both the Big Bang and God After all, if God is omnipotent, he could've created the right circumstances for a Big Bang to happen. To me it seems much more impressive to think that God created a universe with the necessary ingredients to eventually grow into what we know today, than to think God waved his magic wand some day and everything became as it is. The same goes for typical hot topics like evolution. But as I said I'm not religious myself, so perhaps it's not my place to argue about such things.
And speaking of religion: I'm not a very religious man myself, but I do not believe that scientific theory (like the Big Bang) and religion are always mutually exclusive. They operate on completely different grounds, and one should never be used as a reason to disregard the other. I do not see why someone wouldn't be able to believe in both the Big Bang and God After all, if God is omnipotent, he could've created the right circumstances for a Big Bang to happen. To me it seems much more impressive to think that God created a universe with the necessary ingredients to eventually grow into what we know today, than to think God waved his magic wand some day and everything became as it is. The same goes for typical hot topics like evolution. But as I said I'm not religious myself, so perhaps it's not my place to argue about such things.
A: There is a certain velocity (escape velocity) at which an object moves away from the source of gravity at such a speed that the "pull" of gravity will have approached zero before the object is turned around. The result is that the object never turns around.Pararaptor said:
Which leaves the question about what exactly prompted this cycle. Kinda like asking a Christian "If God created everything, then who (or what) created God, then?".Pararaptor said:
as Physics student i've learned many laws of nature. there is no simple way to explain very specifically certain of those. one of them being this theory of 'big bang'.
basically you should just stick with the belief you have, unless you're ready to spent lot of time learning about theory of relativity and other complex physics thing.
(this might sound weird post at this place, im posting after reading page 2, it got so repetative that i couldn't be bothered to read futher)
basically you should just stick with the belief you have, unless you're ready to spent lot of time learning about theory of relativity and other complex physics thing.
(this might sound weird post at this place, im posting after reading page 2, it got so repetative that i couldn't be bothered to read futher)
The thread here is all fine and well, but you've missed the basic description of "theory". Under the scientific method, a theory is simply a tested hypothesis. Only reason it works now is we've not found a better explanation yet. Offering a "yes" or "no" isn't really a proper option for a theory. It's simply the best guess we have at the moment.
Big bang theory in a nutshell:
In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded, creating everything.
the only way we could have any evidence of the big bang happening would be if we find a point in space where stars or planets just kind of end, and there is only space. also if the big bang happened once than shouldn't it have happened somewhere else in the universe causing us to crash into another universe at some point. I think the origin of all space it more complex than something Micheal Bay would come up with.
In the beginning there was nothing, then it exploded, creating everything.
the only way we could have any evidence of the big bang happening would be if we find a point in space where stars or planets just kind of end, and there is only space. also if the big bang happened once than shouldn't it have happened somewhere else in the universe causing us to crash into another universe at some point. I think the origin of all space it more complex than something Micheal Bay would come up with.
On this I have one interesting little question buzzing in my head. No not what was here before, that has always been there, but a curious new one.
How does the Andromeda Galaxy exist?
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.
I believe too many questions about the big bang theory exist to say it is, without a doubt, the birth of the universe and hence it's guiding factors. Few thousand years from now we might have a better understanding of the universe and with that more accurate theories then what we have now.
For that is the way of science, to remain open to the possibility of being wrong and to always be seeking new data, new theories, that could better explain what we are observing. To many people are treating science as a religion, am inflexible 'this is what we know to be true.' Science is a beginning, never a end, to knowledge.
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.
How does the Andromeda Galaxy exist?
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.
I believe too many questions about the big bang theory exist to say it is, without a doubt, the birth of the universe and hence it's guiding factors. Few thousand years from now we might have a better understanding of the universe and with that more accurate theories then what we have now.
For that is the way of science, to remain open to the possibility of being wrong and to always be seeking new data, new theories, that could better explain what we are observing. To many people are treating science as a religion, am inflexible 'this is what we know to be true.' Science is a beginning, never a end, to knowledge.
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.
I find the title of 'The Big Bang' to be quite amusing as there is absolutely no sound due to the vaccuum of space....so what people should be calling it is The Big ...
xx
xx