RobbyPants Posted September 1, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 166 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/27/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted September 1, 2013 The Big Bang is not really a compete answer. How about some details? Was there absolutely nothing before? If not what was there before? My understanding is that the big bang didn't create everything from nothing. It created it from a singularity. So, all of the matter was there from the get go; it was just all in one place. I don't know enough about it to answer the other questions you asked. I read something interesting a couple of months ago, except it's totally in the realm of speculation. The idea is that once the universe dies its heat death, everything will end up in the same state, collapsed into a single location. Then, paradoxically, this would make everything as ordered as it could be, so an increase in entropy would cause another big bang. So, the idea is we're likely on the nth iteration. I found the idea interesting to contemplate, but from what I understand, there isn't any evidence to actually support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil_ Posted September 1, 2013 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 87 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted September 1, 2013 The idea is that once the universe dies its heat death, everything will end up in the same state, collapsed into a single location. Then, paradoxically, this would make everything as ordered as it could be As ordered as it could be? Really? Yet again: really? Tell you what: stick your head out the window, and call all the people on the street to your place. If you find less then a hundred, go out finding some more. Then stay that crowded for a few hours (all in one ordinary room) and then come back here and tell me how ordered did you feel. Then switch that for all of you sitting each in an armchair in a very large room (a castle chamber or a hall or whatever). Tell me how you feel now. so an increase in entropy would cause another big bang. So, the idea is we're likely on the nth iteration. The cyclicity of the universe is an old idea but to my knowledge it has never been a mainstream idea. Not even when Einstein supported it. So smart was this fellow that he even claimed an infinity (or close to it) of singularities (a universe endlessly repeating itself) – read that again: SINGULARities (UNIverses)… But I keep wondering: why is it that you are bothered what did happen and will happen to the big bang universe, when the first order of things should be to actually prove that the big bang universe is actually the real universe? Looking forward. I found the idea interesting to contemplate, but from what I understand, there isn't any evidence to actually support it. There isn’t any evidence to support the big bang universe in the first place, let alone a presumed cyclicity. But if you think there is, as I already said: looking forward. It would actually be nice if people stop making their claims and finally prove them. By the way, you’re a typical big bang fan, since you contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. You previously said “we're likely on the nth iteration”, and now you say “there isn't any evidence to actually support it”… Indeed, empty claims are all you big bang fans have. This is also typical in regard to evolution in general: the idea is so cool (??), now if we could only find some evidence… One of the most amusing such examples regards cosmic evolution: they claim cosmic evolution because they say celestial bodies are very old, so they must have been evolved; and they say celestial bodies are very old based on one thing alone: evolutionary models… How exactly could one NOT laugh reading such things? And you call this science? REALLY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbyPants Posted September 2, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 166 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/27/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted September 2, 2013 Do bear in mind that I threw that out as speculation, and said as much, so for the first two thirds, we're... agreeing? There isn’t any evidence to support the big bang universe in the first place, let alone a presumed cyclicity. There's a bunch of evidence: Background microwave radiation in space, which is consistent with dating the universe to 13 some-odd billion years. Ratios of elements left from the early universe. The expansion of the universe. Observations of older galaxies which behave differently than new ones that disprove the steady state model. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil_ Posted September 2, 2013 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 87 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 7 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/17/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted September 2, 2013 Do bear in mind that I threw that out as speculation, and said as much, so for the first two thirds, we're... agreeing? I don’t know what you’re talking about. If it is cyclicity, then no, we do not agree, because you still contradicted yourself – moreover, in the very same post… There's a bunch of evidence: Background microwave radiation in space, which is consistent with dating the universe to 13 some-odd billion years. I’m sure you believe that, but you saying that doesn’t really constitute evidence, does it? But don’t bother to run deeper, because CMBR contradicts your universe in the highest degree. I won’t tell you here why – just wait for my thread “the real universe”. Ratios of elements left from the early universe. The ratios of elements you observe are in THIS universe (the universe that you can observe today – not to be confused with today’s universe, which, supreme irony, cannot exist, according to your cosmology). So you simply claiming that that’s from an early universe doesn’t tell me anything. Really. Now, the abundance of chemical elements also doesn’t stand. Not only that it’s, instead, an argument for Creation, but because for you it’s, yet again, nothing but a circle: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4333 Read page 14, especially this: “The comparison of calculated and observed abundances depends highly on astrophysical theory (models for the chemical evolution of galaxies and stars).” Yet again, you use evolution to claim evolution. I think I already told you, repeatedly, that all you have is a circle (circular reasoning). The expansion of the universe. The expansion of the universe proves the Bible right, not big bang. Moreover, the type of expansion clearly proves big bang wrong. You must have a huge amount of blind faith to see it otherwise. But wait, since the people that you believe in (the mainstream cosmologists) actually call that “the most profound problem in physics” and you don’t, I think at this point you place yourself outside ANY reason. Observations of older galaxies which behave differently than new ones that disprove the steady state model. Firstly, how exactly could you possibly tell what galaxies are old and what new? Let me guess: based on evolutionary models… You’re running in circles, buddy. Secondly, how does showing steady state wrong prove big bang right? Let me guess: you’re only willing to consider cosmologies that WILLINGLY exclude God… Buddy, you going against the steady state universe doesn’t tell me anything. (Moreover, I find this situation amusing, since I think it was you who in another thread talked about the possibility of an eternal universe. You already contradict yourself too much…) You could run against all the other cosmologies as well and still don’t tell me anything. You can only get my interest if you either defend your universe or attack geocentrism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbyPants Posted September 3, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 166 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/27/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted September 3, 2013 Thanks, Buddy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bestrfcplayer Posted September 5, 2013 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 145 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 29 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted September 5, 2013 Joe hit it on the head, before the Big Bang there was only God. How can you know there was only God? No one was around to see it happen, so how do you know more than anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDavis Posted September 5, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,740 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 183 Days Won: 7 Joined: 07/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/02/1964 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Joe hit it on the head, before the Big Bang there was only God. How can you know there was only God? No one was around to see it happen, so how do you know more than anyone else? I don't know more than anyone else, I can know there was only God because God told me so and God does not lie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbyPants Posted September 5, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 166 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/27/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted September 5, 2013 (edited) Joe hit it on the head, before the Big Bang there was only God.How can you know there was only God? No one was around to see it happen, so how do you know more than anyone else?I don't know more than anyone else, I can know there was only God because God told me so and God does not lieHow could you know that without resorting to circular logic? I don't mean that to be snippy, but the underlying assumption seems circular to me. Edited September 5, 2013 by RobbyPants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDavis Posted September 5, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,740 Content Per Day: 0.44 Reputation: 183 Days Won: 7 Joined: 07/02/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/02/1964 Share Posted September 5, 2013 Joe hit it on the head, before the Big Bang there was only God.How can you know there was only God? No one was around to see it happen, so how do you know more than anyone else? I don't know more than anyone else, I can know there was only God because God told me so and God does not lieHow could you know that without resorting to circular logic? I don't mean that to be snippy, but the underlying assumption seems circular to me. I can't. When it comes to God (and really most things) there comes a point where faith has to take over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobbyPants Posted September 5, 2013 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 166 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 15 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/27/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted September 5, 2013 Fair enough, JDavis. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts