The Big Bang. (56k)

[QUOTE="-Chimera-"]the laws of nature and time itself didn't exist prior to the big bang.Anonymous_2

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

A scientific theory is as close to a fact as science gets, and the Big Bang theory is the model with the most evidence, that makes the most sense and is the most accepted theory on how the universe began.

As for why the universe could not have always existed, it's simple: the universe is expanding. Eventually, it's going to collapse in on itself or rip apart. It couldn't have always existed because it would have ended an eternity ago if it did.

Anonymous_2

Again your logic is so terribly flawed. So if it's expanding then it must collaspe? And whoz to say that it cant expand again after collapsing? But anyways current evidence suggests that the universe may never stop expanding...

A scientific theory is, without fail, based on evidence. Gravity is a scientific theory, electricity is a scientific theory, evolution is a scientific theory, the Big Bang is a scientific theory.

It's called the second law of thermodynamics. . .look it up. Energy is being exhausted as the universe expands; eventually there won't be enough to keep the universe alive and going, so it will die somehow. Big Crunch, heat death, there are plenty of reasons to suggest that the universe will not "pick itself up" and just continue again, and there's no evidence to the contrary.

What evidence is there that the universe will defy every law of physics in existence and never stop expanding?

You have zero evidence to backup your extraordinary claim and yet "incredulity" is not an argument lol.

Anonymous_2

You haven't presented a scrap of evidence either, nor have you presented any possible, logical or factual alternatives. The Big Bang is the best model for the beginning of the universe.

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"]

the universe is gonna collapse when the universe stops expanding. Maqda7

[QUOTE="Anonymous_2"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

A scientific theory is as close to a fact as science gets, and the Big Bang theory is the model with the most evidence, that makes the most sense and is the most accepted theory on how the universe began.

As for why the universe could not have always existed, it's simple: the universe is expanding. Eventually, it's going to collapse in on itself or rip apart. It couldn't have always existed because it would have ended an eternity ago if it did.

Theokhoth

Again your logic is so terribly flawed. So if it's expanding then it must collaspe? And whoz to say that it cant expand again after collapsing? But anyways current evidence suggests that the universe may never stop expanding...

A scientific theory is, without fail, based on evidence. Gravity is a scientific theory, electricity is a scientific theory, evolution is a scientific theory, the Big Bang is a scientific theory.

It's called the second law of thermodynamics. . .look it up. Energy is being exhausted as the universe expands; eventually there won't be enough to keep the universe alive and going, so it will die somehow. Big Crunch, heat death, there are plenty of reasons to suggest that the universe will not "pick itself up" and just continue again, and there's no evidence to the contrary.

What evidence is there that the universe will defy every law of physics in existence and never stop expanding?

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

A scientific theory is as close to a fact as science gets, and the Big Bang theory is the model with the most evidence, that makes the most sense and is the most accepted theory on how the universe began.

As for why the universe could not have always existed, it's simple: the universe is expanding. Eventually, it's going to collapse in on itself or rip apart. It couldn't have always existed because it would have ended an eternity ago if it did.

Again your logic is so terribly flawed. So if it's expanding then it must collaspe? And whoz to say that it cant expand again after collapsing? But anyways current evidence suggests that the universe may never stop expanding...

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Anonymous_2"]

You have zero evidence to backup your extraordinary claim and yet "incredulity" is not an argument lol.

Anonymous_2

You haven't presented a scrap of evidence either, nor have you presented any possible, logical or factual alternatives. The Big Bang is the best model for the beginning of the universe.

"the laws of nature and time itself didn't exist prior to the big bang."

Now that's a huge claim and he is the one liable to prove it not me.

You just had to jump in isnt it?:roll:

Time before the Big Bang is like dividing by zero; it's undefined. Time in the way we know it did not exist so far as we know until after the big bang.

[QUOTE="Anonymous_2"]

You have zero evidence to backup your extraordinary claim and yet "incredulity" is not an argument lol.

Theokhoth

You haven't presented a scrap of evidence either, nor have you presented any possible, logical or factual alternatives. The Big Bang is the best model for the beginning of the universe.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Anonymous_2"]lol wut? Not all scientific theories are equally credible. To say that the big bang is even close to being fact is just ridiculous. Go read up on the "assumptions" made in the big bang theory.

Again your logic is so terribly flawed. So if it's expanding then it must collaspe? And whoz to say that it cant expand again after collapsing? But anyways current evidence suggests that the universe may never stop expanding...

Captain_Swosh69

A scientific theory is, without fail, based on evidence. Gravity is a scientific theory, electricity is a scientific theory, evolution is a scientific theory, the Big Bang is a scientific theory.

It's called the second law of thermodynamics. . .look it up. Energy is being exhausted as the universe expands; eventually there won't be enough to keep the universe alive and going, so it will die somehow. Big Crunch, heat death, there are plenty of reasons to suggest that the universe will not "pick itself up" and just continue again, and there's no evidence to the contrary.

What evidence is there that the universe will defy every law of physics in existence and never stop expanding?

Theory of electricity. How electricity works is a theory.

Energy can change form. Such as becoming thermal energy from kinetic energy.

So there? You act like you proved something.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Anonymous_2"]

You have zero evidence to backup your extraordinary claim and yet "incredulity" is not an argument lol.

Captain_Swosh69

You haven't presented a scrap of evidence either, nor have you presented any possible, logical or factual alternatives. The Big Bang is the best model for the beginning of the universe.

In science, if you think one theory is bad then you need to present a better alternative, or you're full of crap. Actually, it's not just in science; it's in every part of life, really. It's not excuses; it's basic logic.

[QUOTE="Anonymous_2"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

You haven't presented a scrap of evidence either, nor have you presented any possible, logical or factual alternatives. The Big Bang is the best model for the beginning of the universe.

Theokhoth

"the laws of nature and time itself didn't exist prior to the big bang."

Now that's a huge claim and he is the one liable to prove it not me.

You just had to jump in isnt it?:roll:

Time before the Big Bang is like dividing by zero; it's undefined. Time in the way we know it did not exist so far as we know until after the big bang.

[QUOTE="Anonymous_2"]

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

You haven't presented a scrap of evidence either, nor have you presented any possible, logical or factual alternatives. The Big Bang is the best model for the beginning of the universe.

Theokhoth

"the laws of nature and time itself didn't exist prior to the big bang."

Now that's a huge claim and he is the one liable to prove it not me.

You just had to jump in isnt it?:roll:

Time before the Big Bang is like dividing by zero; it's undefined. Time in the way we know it did not exist so far as we know until after the big bang.

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

You haven't presented a scrap of evidence either, nor have you presented any possible, logical or factual alternatives. The Big Bang is the best model for the beginning of the universe.

Theokhoth

In science, if you think one theory is bad then you need to present a better alternative, or you're full of crap. Actually, it's not just in science; it's in every part of life, really. It's not excuses; it's basic logic.

edit: like solving a crime. a detective can prove a suspect on trial of his/her innocence without finding the real killer to prove their innocence. if you never had this thought process then WOW. just WOW.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Anonymous_2"]I am NOT saying that the big bang is false. The guy said this,

"the laws of nature and time itself didn't exist prior to the big bang."

Now that's a huge claim and he is the one liable to prove it not me.

You just had to jump in isnt it?:roll:

Captain_Swosh69

Time before the Big Bang is like dividing by zero; it's undefined. Time in the way we know it did not exist so far as we know until after the big bang.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"] you dont need alternatives. if one argues that he's holding an apple and people saw its an orange, you dont need to show him what an apple looks like. you just laugh at him and say thats not and apple. arguing for people to present alternatives is just counter argument something, its just excuses.Captain_Swosh69

In science, if you think one theory is bad then you need to present a better alternative, or you're full of crap. Actually, it's not just in science; it's in every part of life, really. It's not excuses; it's basic logic.

No, you don't. That's illogical.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Anonymous_2"]I am NOT saying that the big bang is false. The guy said this,

"the laws of nature and time itself didn't exist prior to the big bang."

Now that's a huge claim and he is the one liable to prove it not me.

You just had to jump in isnt it?:roll:

Captain_Swosh69

Time before the Big Bang is like dividing by zero; it's undefined. Time in the way we know it did not exist so far as we know until after the big bang.

I'm sorry, I only speak English.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"] you dont need alternatives. if one argues that he's holding an apple and people saw its an orange, you dont need to show him what an apple looks like. you just laugh at him and say thats not and apple. arguing for people to present alternatives is just counter argument something, its just excuses.Captain_Swosh69

In science, if you think one theory is bad then you need to present a better alternative, or you're full of crap. Actually, it's not just in science; it's in every part of life, really. It's not excuses; it's basic logic.

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

In science, if you think one theory is bad then you need to present a better alternative, or you're full of crap. Actually, it's not just in science; it's in every part of life, really. It's not excuses; it's basic logic.

Theokhoth

No, you don't. That's illogical.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"] and thats full of crap. when some1 presents something thats rubbish, you dont have to present something better. you just say its rubbish.-Chimera-

No, you don't. That's illogical.

Poe's Law, activate!

when some1 presents something thats rubbish, you dont have to present something better. you just say its rubbish.

edit: like solving a crime. a detective can prove a suspect on trial of his/her innocence without finding the real killer to prove their innocence. if you never had this thought process then WOW. just WOW.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Anonymous_2"]lol wut? Not all scientific theories are equally credible. To say that the big bang is even close to being fact is just ridiculous. Go read up on the "assumptions" made in the big bang theory.

Again your logic is so terribly flawed. So if it's expanding then it must collaspe? And whoz to say that it cant expand again after collapsing? But anyways current evidence suggests that the universe may never stop expanding...

Anonymous_2

A scientific theory is, without fail, based on evidence. Gravity is a scientific theory, electricity is a scientific theory, evolution is a scientific theory, the Big Bang is a scientific theory.

It's called the second law of thermodynamics. . .look it up. Energy is being exhausted as the universe expands; eventually there won't be enough to keep the universe alive and going, so it will die somehow. Big Crunch, heat death, there are plenty of reasons to suggest that the universe will not "pick itself up" and just continue again, and there's no evidence to the contrary.

What evidence is there that the universe will defy every law of physics in existence and never stop expanding?

Btw you sure that a scientific theory is without fail? Sure?

I have read it several times and I also read it in the god delusion that "current scientific evidence suggests that the universe may continue to expand forever". Dont know why are you so defending "your" belief of the fate of the universe since so no damn scientist claims to know it.:|

You have no idea what you are talking about. A scientific theory is always based on evidence. there is no law of evolution (lol) because there doesn't need to be one; the "law" of gravity is based on the theory of gravity (without the theory we have no basis for the law) and the Big Bang is still the most likely model for the beginning of the universe.

I said a scientific theory is always based on evidence. So yes, I'm sure. :roll:

The god delusion is a book of idiocy (does he give this evidence? does he give any sources whatsoever with this evidence? Hm?). Dawkins is a biologist, not a physicist, and he believes in the multiverse anyway, a hypothesis with no evidence. :roll:

I mentioned this a while back in a religous thread. Whether you believe in God or not, or the big bang. In the end it does not matter at all, because if we do in fact find out if there is a God or there was in a fact a big bang there will always be another why. We willthen want to know why the big bang came to be, what caused it, who made God. The list goes on and on. I think the reality is that God, the big bang is just too much for a human brain to comprehend. With that being said we will never know, ever.

when some1 presents something thats rubbish, you dont have to present something better. you just say its rubbish.

edit: like solving a crime. a detective can prove a suspect on trial of his/her innocence without finding the real killer to prove their innocence. if you never had this thought process then WOW. just WOW.

Captain_Swosh69

You cannot prove somebody's innocence because they are assumed innocent until proven guilty; you have to prove why they aren't innocent, not the other way around. :lol:

when some1 presents something thats rubbish, you dont have to present something better. you just say its rubbish.

edit: like solving a crime. a detective can prove a suspect on trial of his/her innocence without finding the real killer to prove their innocence. if you never had this thought process then WOW. just WOW.

Captain_Swosh69

I mentioned this a while back in a religous thread. Whether you believe in God or not, or the big bang. In the end it does not matter at all, because if we do in fact find out if there is a God or there was in a fact a big bang there will always be another why. We willthen want to know why the big bang came to be, what caused it, who made God. The list goes on and on. I think the reality is that God, the big bang is just too much for a human brain to comprehend. With that being said we will never know, ever.

xscrapzx

[QUOTE="o0squishy0o"][QUOTE="Anonymous_2"]lol wut? Not all scientific theories are equally credible. To say that the big bang is even close to being fact is just ridiculous. Go read up on the "assumptions" made in the big bang theory.

Again your logic is so terribly flawed. So if it's expanding then it must collaspe? And whoz to say that it cant expand again after collapsing? But anyways current evidence suggests that the universe may never stop expanding...

Anonymous_2

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

Oh my:

Phantom energy in a scenario known as the Big Rip causes an exponentially increasing divergent expansion, which overcomes the gravitation of the local group and tears apart our Virgo supercluster, it then tears apart the milky way galaxy, our solar system, and finally even atoms. Measurements of acceleration are thought crucial to determining the ultimate fate of the universe, however we should expect the implications of such a major discovery to develop slowly over many years in the same way the big bang model has continued to develop.

In short: your article agrees with him. :lol:

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Anonymous_2"]I am NOT saying that the big bang is false. The guy said this,

"the laws of nature and time itself didn't exist prior to the big bang."

Now that's a huge claim and he is the one liable to prove it not me.

You just had to jump in isnt it?:roll:

Anonymous_2

Time before the Big Bang is like dividing by zero; it's undefined. Time in the way we know it did not exist so far as we know until after the big bang.

I read books. That's the current model.

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"]

when some1 presents something thats rubbish, you dont have to present something better. you just say its rubbish.

edit: like solving a crime. a detective can prove a suspect on trial of his/her innocence without finding the real killer to prove their innocence. if you never had this thought process then WOW. just WOW.

Theokhoth

You cannot prove somebody's innocence because they are assumed innocent until proven guilty; you have to prove why they aren't innocent, not the other way around. :lol:

Okay, either this guy is trolling or he doesn't know how the scientific method works.-Chimera-

Yeah, now that he's quoted himself, I agree. :lol:

that nebula looks like a big penis...lawlDarKre

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"]

when some1 presents something thats rubbish, you dont have to present something better. you just say its rubbish.

edit: like solving a crime. a detective can prove a suspect on trial of his/her innocence without finding the real killer to prove their innocence. if you never had this thought process then WOW. just WOW.

Captain_Swosh69

You cannot prove somebody's innocence because they are assumed innocent until proven guilty; you have to prove why they aren't innocent, not the other way around. :lol:

You need evidence to show why he's no longer a suspect; you haven't given any evidence for why the Big Bang is no longer a possible model other than "it's BS."

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

I mentioned this a while back in a religous thread. Whether you believe in God or not, or the big bang. In the end it does not matter at all, because if we do in fact find out if there is a God or there was in a fact a big bang there will always be another why. We willthen want to know why the big bang came to be, what caused it, who made God. The list goes on and on. I think the reality is that God, the big bang is just too much for a human brain to comprehend. With that being said we will never know, ever.

There's a lot of evidence to support the Big Bang Theory, and it is accepted almost unanimously throughout the scientific community. I don't see any reason not to believe in it, especially when there are no alternative theories that are anywhere near as well evidenced.

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

You cannot prove somebody's innocence because they are assumed innocent until proven guilty; you have to prove why they aren't innocent, not the other way around. :lol:

Theokhoth

You need evidence to show why he's no longer a suspect; you haven't given any evidence for why the Big Bang is no longer a possible model other than "it's BS."

The big bang hasn't been proven at all, there's no evidence from the past telling us when it happened scientists just assumed that it did... so yeah, it's a theory.

-Russ93

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"] you dont need alternatives. if one argues that he's holding an apple and people saw its an orange, you dont need to show him what an apple looks like. you just laugh at him and say thats not and apple. arguing for people to present alternatives is just counter argument something, its just excuses.Anonymous_2

In science, if you think one theory is bad then you need to present a better alternative, or you're full of crap. Actually, it's not just in science; it's in every part of life, really. It's not excuses; it's basic logic.

The big bang theory does not say that time didnt exist before it, it just has no way of what was there before it.:|

[QUOTE="-Russ93"]

The big bang hasn't been proven at all, there's no evidence from the past telling us when it happened scientists just assumed that it did... so yeah, it's a theory.

Funky_Llama

well then maybe not on trial, but on their office, they conclude that this guy is no longer a suspect, cross him out. same thing. was a suspect. havent find the killer yet, yet found enuff evidence to clear his name. same thing, enuff BS with the big bang to conclude its BS.Captain_Swosh69

You need evidence to show why he's no longer a suspect; you haven't given any evidence for why the Big Bang is no longer a possible model other than "it's BS."

[QUOTE="DarKre"]that nebula looks like a big penis...lawl-Chimera-