The Big Bang

[Gunny]

No, it doesn't. It's counter-intertuitive, perhaps. Did you check the links?

I just looked at them. One, it does contradict the definitions of "finite" and "infinite."

Two, I disagree with the theory. IMO, using the definitions of "finite" and "infinte" it is nonsensical.

 

[Steerpike]

I just looked at them. One, it does contradict the definitions of "finite" and "infinite."

Two, I disagree with the theory. IMO, using the definitions of "finite" and "infinte" it is nonsensical.

You're using a layman's definition, which I don't think is the best one to use, and I don't think it is nonsensical at all.

What we're talking about are basically geometric and other mathematical concepts. If it were 'nonsensical' then you've got all these physicists with training in advanced mathematics that just somehow fell into a nonsensical mindset that you've managed to see immediately on an internet bulletin board. THAT doesn't make sense, Gunny.

It isn't contradictory or nonsensical at all. And I'm not swayed from that simply because you don't understand it. The concept makes sense, but it takes some looking at and thinking about. I suspect if you put a little more time into looking at it (and without preconceived ideas that it must be wrong) you'd probably understand what they're talking about and see how it makes sense.

It's fine to argue the substance of the theory, but the idea that the concept is inherently contradictory or "nonsense" is just foolish.

 

[Shogun]

I'm glad that people familiar with a SCIENTIFIC discipline like Astronomy can see what IS science and what IS NOT science.

Indeed, It's funny watching onedomino batter RGS about the head and neck with shit that viously boggles RGS's mind.

Denial of observational astrophysics really won't make it's support for the bang any less true. If only the bible thumpers has a scrap of physical evidence on par with hubble images. Meanwhile, falling back on a supposed holy text WRITTEN BY MAN as evidence is hilarious. We might as well consider the Tibetten Book of the Dead a primary source for understanding geology.

 

[Shogun]

I have never contended that Bibilical creation was anything other than what it is. Your attempt to reverse positions and take the offensive is obvious, and noted.

There is no actual physical, scientific evidence to support the Big Bang. THAT is where you are wrong. It is a theory, period. Guesswork that requires faith to make it so.

So in actuality, I am proposing nothing more or less plausible than what YOU are.

Oh yes, there is physical evidence that supports the big bang..


but, I notice that you don't even try to put the biblical creation myth through the same test of the ORIGIN OF GOD as you do the ORIGIN OF THE BANG? Why is that? Shall we ask non-theists what happened BEFORE the bang without similarly asking dogma junkies WHO CREATED THEIR GOD? Is "I am the alpha and omega" a sound scientific observation?


anyway.. here, i thought you'd get a kick out of this gif

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Oh yes, there is physical evidence that supports the big bang..


but, I notice that you don't even try to put the biblical creation myth through the same test of the ORIGIN OF GOD as you do the ORIGIN OF THE BANG? Why is that? Shall we ask non-theists what happened BEFORE the bang without similarly asking dogma junkies WHO CREATED THEIR GOD? Is "I am the alpha and omega" a sound scientific observation?


anyway.. here, i thought you'd get a kick out of this gif

So hurry up and provide that physical evidence that proves the big bang, you would win the Nobel Prize in Science.

 

[CharlestonChad]

I haven't read this thread, but I'll guess what has happened so far.

A bunch of know-it-alls on the internet are arguing about a theory that they don't understand in a field they have no education in, and are throwing around facts and logic that they are merely repeating from what they hear in church or on the discovery channel.

Am I right?


PS: And I'm sure a flame war exists somewhere in the pages.

 

[Gunny]

You're using a layman's definition, which I don't think is the best one to use, and I don't think it is nonsensical at all.

What we're talking about are basically geometric and other mathematical concepts. If it were 'nonsensical' then you've got all these physicists with training in advanced mathematics that just somehow fell into a nonsensical mindset that you've managed to see immediately on an internet bulletin board. THAT doesn't make sense, Gunny.

It isn't contradictory or nonsensical at all. And I'm not swayed from that simply because you don't understand it. The concept makes sense, but it takes some looking at and thinking about. I suspect if you put a little more time into looking at it (and without preconceived ideas that it must be wrong) you'd probably understand what they're talking about and see how it makes sense.

It's fine to argue the substance of the theory, but the idea that the concept is inherently contradictory or "nonsense" is just foolish.

I am using the dictionary definition. Nothing "layman" about it. I would say it is you, or these scientists, creating their own meanings to words that already have specific definitions.

It isn't a matter of my not understanding a concept that defies the definition of the words it is uses. It is not a matter of my not understanding a concept that contradicts itself.

Obviously, I DO understand THESE things.

 

[Steerpike]

It isn't a matter of my not understanding a concept that defies the definition of the words it is uses. It is not a matter of my not understanding a concept that contradicts itself.

Obviously, I DO understand THESE things.

If you think it contradicts itself you don't understand it. But we should move off this topic - I don't think you want to understand it, honestly. I could be wrong, though. I'm not sure of the reason for the resistance to the possibility, instead of discounting it out of hand as contradictory, which it clearly isn't.

 

[Gunny]

If you think it contradicts itself you don't understand it. But we should move off this topic - I don't think you want to understand it, honestly. I could be wrong, though. I'm not sure of the reason for the resistance to the possibility, instead of discounting it out of hand as contradictory, which it clearly isn't.

There is no resistance to the possibility. Anything is possible.

I posted the definition of "finite." Clearly, by definition, something finite requires boundaries.

The argument that the universe can be finite without boundaries contradicts the definition of finite; which. clearly states it has bounds or limits, is measurable and not infinite.

So that's where my argument stands from a logical point of view; thus, my comment that the theory is nonsensical. If you can overcome the lack of logic and contradiction in terms, I'm all ears. Otherwise, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[midcan5]

Explain to me why the product of a minute portion of billions of spermatozoa and ovum that form life assumes they are so special that they live a billion trillion years doing what exactly? Two people in a long evolutionary chain of life got horny one night and presto out came you and I, ain't consciousness great, but I sure will miss it - at least till it happens.

"It is that human capacity to be fully self-conscious that marks Homo sapiens as different from any other form of life in the natural world. That separating difference is what fills human beings with a sense of dread. Anxiety, says Paul Tillich, is born in the human recognition of finitude. It is therefore as omnipresent as humanity itself. To be human is to experience self-consciousness, to know separation, to be made aware of limits and to contemplate ends. One cannot be human, therefore, without being filled with chronic anxiety. It sounds depressing, but surely it is true." Bishop John Selby Spong

 

[Steerpike]

So that's where my argument stands from a logical point of view; thus, my comment that the theory is nonsensical. If you can overcome the lack of logic and contradiction in terms, I'm all ears. Otherwise, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Your definition is unduly limiting. Suppose that nothing can possibly exist outside the universe, but the universe is still finite. In that case, what sense does the word "boundary" make? If there is nothing outside of the universe, then it doesn't have boundaries. A boundary is a line of demarcation between TWO things.

Your are limiting yourself by applying narrow definitions to words.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Your definition is unduly limiting. Suppose that nothing can possibly exist outside the universe, but the universe is still finite. In that case, what sense does the word "boundary" make? If there is nothing outside of the universe, then it doesn't have boundaries. A boundary is a line of demarcation between TWO things.

Your are limiting yourself by applying narrow definitions to words.

I can make up self deluded rules to justify my "theories" as well.

But to the point, YES it would have a boundary. IF nothing can exist outside it then it ENDS somewhere unless of course you think that like a map on a computer game it can wrap around and you can go from far east to far west in one simple step.

 

[Shogun]

So hurry up and provide that physical evidence that proves the big bang, you would win the Nobel Prize in Science.

I have. So has everyone else who is familair with astronomy.

You know, the SCIENCE of PHYSICAL OBSERVATION in space? Say, how many time does onedomino need to bash you about the head and neck wth hubble pics?


And, if you are stupid enough to think that the rest of relevant science DOESNT understand the significance of an expanding universe, as evident by physical observation, then well.. you ARE one dumb motherfucker.

 

[Steerpike]

I can make up self deluded rules to justify my "theories" as well.

Intelligent comment. I think I'll stick to talking to Gunny. At least he makes sense and isn't insulting. You're just intent on showing your ignorance.

 

[Alucard]

I have. So has everyone else who is familair with astronomy.

You know, the SCIENCE of PHYSICAL OBSERVATION in space? Say, how many time does onedomino need to bash you about the head and neck wth hubble pics?


And, if you are stupid enough to think that the rest of relevant science DOESNT understand the significance of an expanding universe, as evident by physical observation, then well.. you ARE one dumb motherfucker.

Explain how the big bang was described "exactly" in the book of genesis...

The order of events is exact....

This should be a good dance!

 

[Gunny]

Your definition is unduly limiting.

Again, it is not my definition. It is "the" definition. I am merely applying it.

Suppose that nothing can possibly exist outside the universe, but the universe is still finite. In that case, what sense does the word "boundary" make? If there is nothing outside of the universe, then it doesn't have boundaries. A boundary is a line of demarcation between TWO things.

That a boundary at all exists is assumption; likewise, that the universe is finite. Keep in mind, "boundary" is your term, not mine.

Your are limiting yourself by applying narrow definitions to words.

Let's assume the universe is finite, nothing lies beyond, and there is no boundary. Logically, that would mean "nothing" is part of the universe rather than separate from it; otherwise, a boundary exists ... a line of demarcation from universe to "nothing."

I am not applying a narrow definition of words. I am apply "the" definition of words. The argument that chooses to alter the definition of those words would be technically incorrect at the structural level, as would everything that follows.

 

[Gunny]

Shogun ...

You'll find our portion of this argument in the Flame ZOne, appropriately titled.

 

[Paulie]

but actually everyone is an atheist except for the one God they believe in.

This makes no sense. Athiests don't believe in any god. Monotheists believe in ONE god. An Athiest cannot also be a monotheist. It's one or the other.

 

[USViking]

The challenge is to post the evidence that proves the Big Bang. You cannot. There is none. It is a theory. In layman's terms, guesswork.

Big Bang theory predicts the existence of
the cosmic microwave background.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest3.html

(from link):

The Big Bang theory predicts that the early universe was a very hot place and that as it expands, the gas within it cools. Thus the universe should be filled with radiation that is literally the remnant heat left over from the Big Bang, called the “cosmic microwave background radiation”, or CMB.

The existence of the CMB radiation was first predicted by George Gamow in 1948, and by Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman in 1950. It was first observed inadvertently in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in Murray Hill, New Jersey.

Although there is no such thing as proof that will
satisfy everyone, whether in science or elsewhere,
the CMB has convinced most professional cosmologists
of the accuracy of Big Bang theory.

What expansion of the universe? Another scientific theory that requires belief...

The cosmic redshift is evidence of expansion.

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/cosmic_reference/redshift.html

(from link):

Astronomers often use the term redshift when describing how far away a distant object is. To understand what a redshift is, think of how the sound of a siren changes as it moves toward and then away from you. As the sound waves from the siren move toward you, they are compressed into higher frequency sound waves. As the siren moves away from you, its sound waves are stretched into lower frequencies. This shifting of frequencies is called the Doppler effect.

A similar thing happens to light waves. When an object in space moves toward us it light waves are compressed into higher frequencies or shorter wavelengths, and we say that the light is blueshifted. When an object moves away from us, its light waves are stretched into lower frequencies or longer wavelengths, and we say that the light is redshifted...

The light from most objects in the Universe is redshifted as seen from the Earth. Only a few objects, mainly local objects like planets and some nearby stars, are blueshifted...

The redshift was discovered ca. 1929 and has
convinced most cosmologists since then of the
accuracy of the expanding universe theory.

So hurry up and provide that physical evidence that proves the big bang, you would win the Nobel Prize in Science.

Penzias and Wilson shared the 1979 Nobel
for their discovery of the CMB.

 

[eots]

hey rgs speaking of the nobel prize

Nobel Panel Urged to Rescind Prize for Lobotomies
by Eric Weiner

Listen Now [5 min 47 sec] add to playlist

Day to Day, August 10, 2005 · The now-discredited procedure of the lobotomy, which involves severing nerve connections within the brain of a mentally ill person, won the Nobel Prize for Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz in 1949. Now there's an effort by the families of lobotomy patients to persuade the Nobel Prize committee to rescind the award given to Moniz.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4794007