|
| Thread: The Big Bang: did it happen or not? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Xarfax111
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
The last hero standing
|
posted January 09, 2009 03:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
do not contradict the existence of a God or the Bible - all those could have happened in those 7 days.
Sorry, it DOES contradict the Bible, Koran and Tora and all the other stories made up by death fearing humans. It does not contradict the existence of God.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 03:09 PM |
|
|
*Sigh*
For this poll, if you believe in God and accept the scientific explanation of the big bang as God's "way" to create everything, you'd have to pick either answer 1 or 2.
If you believe in God, but do NOT accept the big bang as His way of creation, your answer is 3.
If you do NOT believe in God or Him having a hand in it, but the scientific explanation of how things came to pass via the big bang appeals to you, you answer 1 or 2.
Lastly if you believe neither in God nor in the theory of the big bang you answer 3.
Ok?
|
|
Xarfax111
Bad-mannered
Supreme Hero
The last hero standing
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 03:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You say we won't ever know the answer, yet you gave the answer yourself?
Well i dont understand Eternity (my mind is too small, im human). So there is no answer for me.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 03:15 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 15:16, 09 Jan 2009.
|
Quote:
While I really don't know for sure, I am always tempted to lean towards the scientific angle rather than the religious angle. Ror the exact reason that picture posted by L-M indicates  At least the scientific method is self-cleansing and progressing.
As a TOOL, yes.
There is NO difference between science and religion IF you use science to understand TRUTH. Here's why:
Truth DOES NOT change. Science does.
Truth is irrefutable. Science isn't.
If you want to speak of truth on science's behalf then congratulations, you just turned science into a religion (aka "never change, keep idea forever") because truth does NOT change. The moment you acknowledge it even as a FRACTION of truth, if it changes in the future (likely) then you make either a fool out of yourself (for claiming truth, or a fraction of it, by science which isn't made for that), or you refuse to change it -- which transforms it into a religion.
Quote:
And it fits pretty well with the expand of the universe, for example.
It doesn't. The Universe is accelerating. An explosion is either expanding steadily (if there's no "friction" or other factors to slow it down) or decelerates.
So scientists make up an excuse called "dark matter". If you ask me it's no better than "God is pulling the Universe"
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 03:17 PM |
|
|
I personally have not researched into it sufficiently to form an educated opinion. Why or how that happened is beyond me and the big bang is just a theory. I am aware that if it's true it would explain some things but there could always be another better explanation we have not considered yet. As a layman I would be interested in what you have to say.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 03:54 PM |
|
|
What are alternatives to the big bang theory?
String theory is very abstract (so some people claim, I can only parrot what I've been told, since I don't study science...).
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 03:56 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
Do you believe that there was this beginning of spacetime when there was this giant explosion out of the ultra-dense black hole?
And therein lies the problem with your question, and most peoples' approach to science. Who cares what you believe? What matters in science is not what you believe, but what is.
Furthermore, the Big Bang is a theory. It was formulated to explain certain observations. There is no "right" or wrong", at least not in any absolute sense. To ask whether the Big Bang theory is "right" or "wrong" makes about as much sense as asking whether Quantum Mechanics is "right" or "wrong". It is neither. It is both. It is somewhere in between.
Does the Big Bang fit one or more empirical observations? The answer is a clear "yes". Are there other models that may fit empirical observations better? The answer is probably also "yes". The same can be said for current theories of relativity, evolution, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, etc. To even ask such a question demonstrates that you don't really understand that a theory is not a static entity, nor is it ever going to be a perfect model of reality. And the word "belief" shouldn't be anywhere in the discussion.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 04:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@JJ
Quote:
Do you believe that there was this beginning of spacetime when there was this giant explosion out of the ultra-dense black hole?
And therein lies the problem with your question, and most peoples' approach to science. Who cares what you believe? What matters in science is not what you believe, but what is.
Furthermore, the Big Bang is a theory. It was formulated to explain certain observations. There is no "right" or wrong", at least not in any absolute sense.
And therein lies the problem of your answer. If in science matters only what IS, than why make models about things that may or may not HAVE BEEN? And if there is no "right" or "wrong" in an absolute sense - what do you do with a model then. Look at it and shrug?
To ask whether the Big Bang theory is "right" or "wrong" makes about as much sense as asking whether Quantum Mechanics is "right" or "wrong". It is neither. It is both. It is somewhere in between.
No, that's not right. Big Bang is an explanation that describes what happened when time started. It IS a theory that may or may not fit with one or more empirical observations, but the GIST of it, the main claim, is either right or wrong. Did the universe "explode" out of nowhere or not?
There is nothing wrong with asking whether you are buying that. Whether you buy it or not may depend on what you know about the evidence.
Quote:
Does the Big Bang fit one or more empirical observations? The answer is a clear "yes". Are there other models that may fit empirical observations better? The answer is probably also "yes". The same can be said for current theories of relativity, evolution, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, etc. To even ask such a question demonstrates that you don't really understand that a theory is not a static entity, nor is it ever going to be a perfect model of reality. And the word "belief" shouldn't be anywhere in the discussion.
That's what I wanted to discuss after the poll, actually, but what your post demonstrates is that you seem to mistake the theory of science with the practice of cosmological physics. And while a theory is no static entity, each theory has foundations without which the theory wouldn't be the same anymore. An example would be the ether. Either there is one or not. You have either a theory WITH an ether or one without an ether, and a theory that evolves around the postulation that there is none will be scrapped as soon as there is evidence for one.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 06:07 PM |
|
|
@Corribus: I think JJ wasn't talking about pure science, but more about the implications of the Big Bang etc... (not just science, possibly philosophy etc).
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
friendofgunnar
Honorable
Legendary Hero
able to speed up time
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 06:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I voted that it's a BS.
Used to read much about it and the scientific world slowly recants from it, as far as I understand.
What exactly have you been reading?
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 06:29 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 18:30, 09 Jan 2009.
|
I dont understand how somebody can belive in god. It makes no sense.
Someday, our current religions will die out just like the old Norse religion etc.
The only viable religion is buddhism.
I do believe that we are on the "right track" but there are lots of errors in the big bang theory.
This is religion today:
1. God says something.
2. Yay, in one second the whole universe was formed because he said one word!
Unorginal -.-
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 06:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
This is religion today:
1. God says something.
2. Yay, in one second the whole universe was formed because he said one word!
LOL
attend some philosophy first. Would it help if I say to you that God created time as well? How can he have a 'mouth' to 'say' it (cause I see you take it literally) if there's not even time, forget about matter... but yeah that's OT, not sure why you brought it up either.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 06:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@Corribus: I think JJ wasn't talking about pure science, but more about the implications of the Big Bang etc... (not just science, possibly philosophy etc).
Good, because if he's trying to evaluate the BB as a scientific theory, he's got it all wrong.
Then again, what do I know about science....
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 07:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I voted that it's a BS.
Used to read much about it and the scientific world slowly recants from it, as far as I understand.
What exactly have you been reading?
mostly crap magazines as Newsweek, where I found a couple articles about it. Hey, I'm no scientist. Also stumbled across a few sites bashing the big bang theory, but I don't remember exactly which 
Xerox, would you mind take your anti-religious fanaticism elsewhere? You write the same stuff over and over in every thread that is even in a tiny bit related to religion. Yes, we know, you hate it, you don't understand it (not a weird thing keeping in mind you're 13 yo) and you think it should be dead and forgotten. YES WE KNOW ALREADY
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 08:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
@Corribus: I think JJ wasn't talking about pure science, but more about the implications of the Big Bang etc... (not just science, possibly philosophy etc).
Good, because if he's trying to evaluate the BB as a scientific theory, he's got it all wrong.
That's the question, isn't it?
Let's not forget that science is a METHOD. A science is called a science because it's aspecific area of research that applies the scientific method.
A theory is scientific, if it was forged following the scientific method.
A scientific theory - or a acientific model - not only has to be in agreement with all evidence, it must be falsifiable, experimentally, and it must be able to make predictions.
As a rule of thumb predictions and falsifiabiliy come together at some point. If, using a theory or a model, making a prediction that is proven false experimentally, evidentially, it spells death for a theory or model; after all a model or theory has to be in agreement with all evidence. At the very least the theory will hav to be modified.
Now, that's all nice and well if the theory evolves around something you can get EXACT evidence of, since you can control the experimental environment or the thing you are looking for evidence for. However, with cosmology things are a bit more complicated.
If you want to make scientific statements about the beginning of the universe you have the same kind of problems you have with the history of the Earth. You have to find "traces" or "footprints" of what happened long ago which inevitably means that evidence has to be evaluated and interpreted.
The second thing is the evidence as such. A lot of stuff is based on observation of objects extremely far away. Observational results are, well, let's say difficult. They need interpretation. A hubble picture isn't self-explanatory, by no means. Moreover results are not exact and prone to errors of an astonishing magnitude. Evaluations of the age of the universe may differ a couple billion years, depending. which isn't exactly a "slight" margin.
So, cosmologically spoken, what we have are some puzzle pieces of a puzzle we don't know the dimensions, yet: it may be square or round or has any kind of shape. We don't know the number of parts either. But we go ahead and paste them together, scientifically, making sure that every known piece fits, even though for some parts we don't know whether they may not have to be turned around and so on. Of course, a lot of parts are still missing, and those we try to fill in - with the sole purpose to take a look at the full picture.
The Big Bang theory is one such "full picture". It makes some statements about the age of the universe and how it came to pass, about the size of it, about temperatures at certain times and so on.
Now, if you look at the Big Bang theory, 2 questions are of interest:
1) As a scientific theory, is it in agreement wth all observed evidence?
1a) What about the evidence as such? How undisputed is it?
1b) What about the predictions it makes or made? Right or wrong?
This is the SCIENTIFIC evaluation of the theory: is it scientifically (still) sound?
While I fully intend to discuss this, it wasn't what I asked.
2) Are there OTHER cosmologic theories as sound as the one in question? Rivalling ones, so-to-speak, which may or may not be scientific, and IF they ARE scientific they explain the same evidence in a different way to a different puzzle picture.
Note that scientists around the world are not in agreement. There is for exampe the Quasi-Steady State Cosmology as well.
And, Corribus, while you my think that belief should be out of it, at THIS point it is quite obviously solely a question of belief. It starts with how evidence is gained, it leads on to how evidence is evaluated and it ends with a different picture.
That's why I don't see anything wrong about asking whether people actually believe the universe did start with a Big Bang.
Lastly, a theory can be PROVEN wrong - in fact, falsifiability is a prerequisite for a scientific theory.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 08:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Lastly, a theory can be PROVEN wrong - in fact, falsifiability is a prerequisite for a scientific theory.
Another problem would be that this proof (for being wrong) must be reproducible, which might not always be the case.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 08:20 PM |
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but reproductability is a prerequiste for a scientific proof.
Of course, TODAY, if you had a certain unique situation, for example a planetary constellation that won't happen again for the next 10000 years or so you have to double, triple and quadruple check experiments and make a whole series of them, which would be quite possible nowadays.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 08:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but reproductability is a prerequiste for a scientific proof.
Yes and it's why science may not be the best 'tool' to discuss the Big Bang or this subject.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 08:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but reproductability is a prerequiste for a scientific proof.
It will have to be proven, reproduceable if possible. If its managed to be reproduced its 1 step closer to be bulletproff
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 09, 2009 09:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but reproductability is a prerequiste for a scientific proof.
Yes and it's why science may not be the best 'tool' to discuss the Big Bang or this subject.
Why is that?
|
| |
|
|
