Register to reply

Is Big Bang true?

by jinchuriki300
Tags: bang
Share this thread:
zahero_2007
#37
Oct4-11, 07:24 AM
P: 78
So the big bang theory is not the correct way to explain the origin of the universe but it can rather describe approximately the universe beyond a certain time .
phinds
#38
Oct4-11, 07:36 AM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 6,479
Quote Quote by zahero_2007 View Post
So the big bang theory is not the correct way to explain the origin of the universe but it can rather describe approximately the universe beyond a certain time .
Yes, and generally that time is taken to be the Plank Time which is about 10E-43 seconds.
lyy1992
#39
Oct4-11, 08:07 AM
P: 9
I'm also very interested on Big Bang Theory before. I think that the Big Bang theory is neither correct nor wrong, but is the best way to explain the origin of the universe by now. I don't know how the point ball of space before the Big Bang can store so much energy that created all of us, but this theory is predicted by looking the sky. All stars and galaxy are moving away! I don't say that the theory is correct but, who know it is the truth?

Either the universe is expanding or not, it depends on how you view the universe! The red shift detected from stars suggested that the universe is expanding, one point for Big Bang theory. But if you look at the red shift, the effect of red shift is being transmitted million years ago, we know that the universe is expanding before, but not necessary for now. I don't know what is happening on the sky there by now, so we are studying history.

What I can say is the human life is too short for us to make observation. Well, at least we can make a foolish prediction so that the future generation can refer on it.
phinds
#40
Oct4-11, 10:53 AM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 6,479
Quote Quote by lyy1992 View Post
I'm also very interested on Big Bang Theory before. I think that the Big Bang theory is neither correct nor wrong, but is the best way to explain the origin of the universe by now.
No, the big bang theory does NOT predict the origin of the Universe, it describes everts after the Plank time and it absolutly IS correct.

Either the universe is expanding or not, it depends on how you view the universe! The red shift detected from stars suggested that the universe is expanding, one point for Big Bang theory. But if you look at the red shift, the effect of red shift is being transmitted million years ago, we know that the universe is expanding before, but not necessary for now. I don't know what is happening on the sky there by now, so we are studying history.
No, that is not correct either. The universe IS expanding.

What I can say is the human life is too short for us to make observation. Well, at least we can make a foolish prediction so that the future generation can refer on it.
No, that is not correct either. Physicsts have made THOUSANDS of observations (probably MUCH more than that) and they all tell a coherent and consistent story. There are holes in our knowledge, but your belief that we operate from total ignorance it just silly.
1mmorta1
#41
Oct4-11, 01:15 PM
P: 158
Why do you feel so ardently that the big bang theory is wrong? To be skeptical is one thing, but to blatantly disregard evidence is another...
Do you have a religious or other non-scientific objection to the big bang?
DaveC426913
#42
Oct4-11, 01:27 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by 1mmorta1 View Post
Why do you feel so ardently that the big bang theory is wrong? To be skeptical is one thing, but to blatantly disregard evidence is another...
Do you have a religious or other non-scientific objection to the big bang?
Who is this directed towards?

Not sure any of the detractors are being ardent. More like mere indefensible superstition.
phinds
#43
Oct4-11, 01:33 PM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 6,479
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
Who is this directed towards?

Not sure any of the detractors are being ardent. More like mere indefensible superstition.
Dave, I though that post was an appropriate response to Ivy1992's post, which is nonsense, although yeah, the "ardent" was a stretch.
DaveC426913
#44
Oct4-11, 02:30 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by phinds View Post
Ivy1992's post, which is nonsense
True.

Wasn't sure if it was directed at zahero too/instead.
1mmorta1
#45
Oct4-11, 02:41 PM
P: 158
Oops! I made that post with my phone, I guess it didn't quote who I wanted to. It was to that junchiriki guy, who believes the universe is static (I don't remember how his user name is spelled). Although I suppose it could apply to several posters on this thread.

I used the term blatant, not ardent ;)
jtbell
#46
Oct4-11, 03:28 PM
Mentor
jtbell's Avatar
P: 11,857
Quote Quote by 1mmorta1 View Post
It was to that junchiriki guy
...who last posted to this thread nearly four months ago.
1mmorta1
#47
Oct4-11, 03:40 PM
P: 158
Quote Quote by jtbell View Post
...who last posted to this thread nearly four months ago.
Apologies, on my phone all I noticed was that this thread was trending. I saw his posts about how the big bang was false and thought I'd ask a most obvious question.

I'm not a big forum guy, this is the first time I've really been active on one- I'll make sure to keep an eye on such things from now on :)
Jocko Homo
#48
Oct4-11, 11:34 PM
P: 133
Quote Quote by 1mmorta1 View Post
Why do you feel so ardently that the big bang theory is wrong? To be skeptical is one thing, but to blatantly disregard evidence is another...
Do you have a religious or other non-scientific objection to the big bang?
Quote Quote by 1mmorta1 View Post
Oops! I made that post with my phone, I guess it didn't quote who I wanted to. It was to that junchiriki guy, who believes the universe is static (I don't remember how his user name is spelled). Although I suppose it could apply to several posters on this thread.

I used the term blatant, not ardent ;)
In both cases, the emphasis is mine...
lyy1992
#49
Oct5-11, 03:34 AM
P: 9
Whoa, ok, I just skeptical on it, so I made a suggestion. Well, very obvious that the suggestion is wrong, you may simply ignore it. I got to study more about it.
Sorry for nonsense reply, but I think it is possible.
DaveC426913
#50
Oct5-11, 08:38 AM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by lyy1992 View Post
but I think it is possible.
Well, anything is possible when one has no facts. But from thence comes faeries, ghosts and unicorns too.
phinds
#51
Oct5-11, 09:07 AM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 6,479
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
Well, anything is possible when one has no facts. But from thence comes faeries, ghosts and unicorns too.
+1 on that
1mmorta1
#52
Oct5-11, 11:53 AM
P: 158
Quote Quote by Jocko Homo View Post
In both cases, the emphasis is mine...
Man, I can't believe I didn't realize that I said ardent...I must now dedicate myself to physics for the remainder of my natural life in order to make up for this...

Haha. Thank you for pointing that out :)
LaurieAG
#53
Oct10-11, 07:02 AM
P: 66
You said it DaveC426913, I agree 100%
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
Well, anything is possible when one has no facts. But from thence comes faeries, ghosts and unicorns too.
I came across one of Chronos' old posts in a locked thread that put things in a similar perspective.
Mathematical artifacts aside, the burden of proof is upon you to falsify my model, not me.
But these statements mean that anything that falsifies the model is against forum rules so asking questions where only dissenting answers are against the forum rules and not the original questions themselves is the way to comply.

Does that mean any model resembling our universe, that is based on the application of something like a higher level (field, cyclic, period) construct with only 1 real cycle, that has many sub parts with independent infinite/VL number limits, is equivalent to multiple discrete improper integrals that should not remain linearly undefined or artifacts of Pi will be expected to start popping up to hilight the original falsification under the burden of truth?

I'm all in agreement so far.

So something as simple as the the latest time back to the big bang divided by the time back to our own solar systems creation should never be be considered as an artifact because we are just viewing ancient light as our solar system spins around our own galactic centre? And the artifact that you get when you divide a Galactic year (the time light travels while a source makes 1 complete galactic rotation) by the diameter of the galactic rotation in years is also misconstrued because Pi is what you would expect when you were viewing spiral light paths in linear observation experiments?

I'm still in agreement but I think you forgot about banshees and the pooka.
phinds
#54
Oct10-11, 07:08 AM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 6,479
Quote Quote by LaurieAG View Post
I'm still in agreement but I think you forgot about banshees and the pooka.
HEY ... leave the pooka out of this. I believe in the pooka. The world NEEDS the pooka


Register to reply

Related Discussions
If Big Crunch = True, then Reincarnation = True? Cosmology 18
The true, true stress-strain curve? General Engineering 3
Big bang, schmig bang: everything's just shrinking Astronomy & Astrophysics 43
True Time and True c Special & General Relativity 78
Big bang and small bang black holes Cosmology 5