# Energy cannot be Created nor Destroyed...



## Danielf (Dec 9, 2013)

And yet the Big Bang happened which created the known universe. Science is contradicting itself.. 
FYI I am neither atheist nor a believer. I am neither an agnostic. I enjoy listening to both scientific and religious theories but so far they remain just that: theories.. there is not a single 100% proven and true fact of either of these disciplines. 
Also philosophers chase each other in circles, their question: Which came first the Chicken or the Egg? has a scientific explanation and yet it doesn't explain anything in fact. The theory is that the egg came first because it was hatched by an "ancestor" of the chicken - a Proto Chicken which hatched a mutated egg which evolved into the modern day chicken we see today. As for the Proto Chicken itself it came from the Water "obviously" as all life comes from there. 
Here's a better explanation than mine I guess: 




All in all the more I delve deeper into this knowledge the more I realize that humans stand no chance of figuring out the truth in the foreseeable future...


----------



## DeniseAfterAll (Jul 28, 2012)

Matter and energy were always there .. infinite years ago .. and it'll still be there .. infinite years ahead .. because that's how it Is , and humans , as a result of their inbuilt curiosity .. will instinctually keep digging at it when it's actually a very easy fact to accept and come to peace with .

The existence of multiverses essentially proves Itself , too .. by the very fact that we're here . If it is possible for our universe to come to an end .. it would , at some point .. have reached multiple such endings .. infinitesimally long ago . Otherwise we wouldn't be here . It would be the end of Everything , but such ends are impossible . because we're here , and time began infinitesimally long ago .

Chickens evolved very slowly . The first 'bird' to lay the chicken egg .. probably wasn't fully a chicken . The chicken egg came first .. bearing a newly formed , mutated and artificially bred species .. known as the chicken .


----------



## Danielf (Dec 9, 2013)

DeniseAfterAll said:


> Matter and energy were always there .. infinite years ago .. and it'll still be there .. infinite years ahead .. because that's how it Is , and humans , as a result of their inbuilt curiosity .. will instinctually keep digging at it when it's actually a very easy fact to accept and come to peace with .


Right! And Matter = Energy and yet science claims that a Big Friggin silent Bang happened (since there is no sound in space) and created everything...
While religion as in Hinduism and Buddhism for example claim that the first sound heard in the universe was "OM" which gave life to everything... :^)


----------



## DeniseAfterAll (Jul 28, 2012)

I don't think they actually believe that the big bang came out of a vacuum . It was more of a concentrated cluster of energy .


----------



## Danielf (Dec 9, 2013)

Personally I believe that a fusion between science and spirituality might provide better answers than when they are apart. Scientists deny that there is a soul and claim that we cease to exist when we die. Spirituality claims the opposite. Both are impossible to prove or disprove and yet both are perhaps possible. In fact the multiverse is one big contradiction. Like there is free will and yet there is also fate. There is Stasis and Order and yet there is Chaos. While humanity continues to speak in different tongues (as in one part worshiping deities and the other using the scientific method) we may never be able to truly understand the world by and large. 
Water has atoms and those atoms have energy. You can get more energy out of a glass of water than you could out of an Ocean. And yet energy is the same as mass which means that beyond our normal sight water is as thin as air and unlike the material world our spiritual selves do not need it to survive. Our bodies are mass composed mostly of water and yet using a futuristic microscope to look at your skin you can see that you are nothing more than energy moving fast. x_x


----------



## shyguyred (Jul 26, 2013)

Where things came from is a pointless and unanswerable question and scientists or anyone else will never be able to answer it with any certainty or truth. Because t ok now the answer you would have to know everything that has happened in the universe,and there is no way to test this,the whole concept of beginning and endings is nonsensical ,each thing in life flows into the next nothing abruptly stops or ceases to exist, and we have no evidence of anything in the universe ending or beginning and it could never be locial confiremed.So the whole question is nonsensical and has no sematic meaning, its like asking what color is jealousy.


----------



## Danielf (Dec 9, 2013)

I think the easiest way to know what truly is is when you are dead but I am not looking forward to testing that theory! 
Death will eventually come to us all. To the whole world in fact. Entropy is where everything is heading but I am hoping we figure out the meaning beforehand. 
One thing is perhaps certain though: Everything is created out of a thought. In this case YOU created YOU. You choose to appear at this earth at exactly this time for a reason. A reason you may have know while you were still a thought and automatically forgot once you took material shape. I know each generation of people likes to think that the era that they live in is most important in history. That time itself starts and ends with there birth and death and the most significant things happen and perhaps that is an ultimate truth but also a paradox..


----------



## Tensor (Mar 9, 2013)

It's fine to dislike science, but you should at least understand what it is and what it actually tells us before drawing conclusions.



Danielf said:


> Energy cannot be Created nor Destroyed... And yet the Big Bang happened which created the known universe. Science is contradicting itself..


The Big Bang is a model of cosmological expansion. Nothing more, nothing less. Scientists noticed that the universe is expanding and extrapolated that at some point in the past, all matter and energy must have been concentrated at a single incredibly dense point. The model says nothing of creation, contrary to your beliefs. And several pieces of evidence support the model, most notably the cosmic microwave background radiation. There are criticisms as well.



Danielf said:


> I enjoy listening to both scientific and religious theories but so far they remain just that: theories.. there is not a single 100% proven and true fact of either of these disciplines.


What would you accept to be 100% proven and true? Seems quite arbitrary. Measurements of the electron's anomalous magnetic dipole moment agree with QED predictions to within one part in a billion. General relativity has successfully predicted the precession of Mercury's perihelion, gravitational lensing, frame dragging, and other phenomena. You would not be able to use a cell phone or microwave your food if our theory of electromagnetism were not reality or very close to it.

It's not perfect, but, when applied properly, science is the best method we have of understanding the world around us.


----------



## PatheticGuy (Sep 2, 2013)

Learn science, than try to discredit it. I had somewhat similar thoughts from half knowledge of scientific theories when I was a teenager. Learning science was a major turning point in my outlook on life. A depressing one but amazing at the same time.


----------



## DeeperUnderstanding (May 19, 2007)

I find the truth lies somewhere between science and religion. There had to have been a big bang, but some spiritual force had to have made it happen. We didn't happen by accident. I refuse to believe that we were just made by chance.

I do believe in a God, but I believe that he is more of a creator than an all-seeing and-all knowing deity. But there are so many questions. Where do we go when we die? I have been in the room with someone who recently passed, and have felt the spiritual energy, and I do believe in ghosts and the paranormal, so I have to believe in some life after this one.

Interesting debate. You would have been better posting this in the religion debate or the S&C debate sections.


----------



## Danielf (Dec 9, 2013)

Tensor said:


> It's not perfect, but, when applied properly, science is the best method we have of understanding the world around us.


Actually No... because science is based on what an individual sees and "tests". And what we see isn't everything there is. Besides not all scientists agree on exactly the same thing because not all of them see the exact same thing as the others. Our 5 senses, most of all Sight are misleading us. 
And just because there are physical laws which govern our solar system does not mean they apply to everywhere. 
The theory (yes it is a theory not a fact) of general relativity may have helped people understand our universe better in the past but it's completely contradictable to Quantum Mechanics. 
Einstein himself believed that some sort of higher power created the universe in a Lawfully, Ordered way while Quantum scientists believe that everything happened randomly..

PS: I posted this thread here because I was frustrated on the matter!


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

The way I look at it is this. I think we've probably gotten a little ahead of ourselves arguing about the origin of the universe if we haven't even figured out how to travel to the closest star system to our own within a human lifetime.


----------



## Tensor (Mar 9, 2013)

Danielf said:


> Actually No... because science is based on what an individual sees and "tests". And what we see isn't everything there is.


Seeing certainly isn't everything. That's why serious scientific studies are no longer done based on sight alone. We have devised pretty clever devices to probe the world where human senses fail.



Danielf said:


> Besides not all scientists agree on exactly the same thing because not all of them see the exact same thing as the others.


Is that supposed to be an argument against science? The beauty of the method is that it's based on repeatable observations. If one person produces a result which nobody else can reproduce, it's suspect. If many groups around the world can reproduce it, then we can give weight to the finding as reflecting some aspect of reality. This is how real progress is made.



Danielf said:


> And just because there are physical laws which govern our solar system does not mean they apply to everywhere.


There's no _a priori_ reason to assume that physics is the same everywhere in the universe, but observations seem to confirm that. The galaxies closest to and farthest from us appear to form and behave in the same ways.



Danielf said:


> The theory (yes it is a theory not a fact)


That's not as discrediting as you believe it is. A theory, as understood in science, is an overarching framework which predicts many phenomena and has been extensively supported by evidence. As I asked earlier, when does something become a fact? Is a model's ability to very accurately predict features of the universe not enough?



Danielf said:


> general relativity may have helped people understand our universe better in the past but it's completely contradictable to Quantum Mechanics.


General relativity and quantum mechanics arose around the same time, and they both continue to make extremely good predictions in their relevant domains. GPS systems would not work, for example, without relativistic corrections. The two theories have, as yet, not been unified satisfactorily, but it's exciting to think that there's a framework beyond that which we haven't discovered.



Danielf said:


> Einstein himself believed that some sort of higher power created the universe in a Lawfully, Ordered way while Quantum scientists believe that everything happened randomly..


Einstein preferred determinism, but if the universe is essentially probabilistic, then that's the way it is. No argument to human authority will change that.



Danielf said:


> PS: I posted this thread here because I was frustrated on the matter!


It's OK to be frustrated, but it doesn't give license to misrepresent an entire field of human endeavor. Especially since readers who have little or no experience with science may take your half-truths as fact.


----------



## Danielf (Dec 9, 2013)

Tensor said:


> That's not as discrediting as you believe it is. A theory, as understood in science, is an overarching framework which predicts many phenomena and has been extensively supported by evidence. As I asked earlier, when does something become a fact? Is a model's ability to very accurately predict features of the universe not enough?


Well it would be enough if you settled for half the facts I guess... true some theories do have compelling credibility but that does not mean that they are 100% accurate. This is what I am "frustrated" about. Because we have taken a discipline (called science) which only settles for half the facts instead of the whole story.



Tensor said:


> Seeing certainly isn't everything. That's why serious scientific studies are no longer done based on sight alone. We have devised pretty clever devices to probe the world where human senses fail.


True! A device which uses numbers and equations is far more credible than the human senses. But can a machine probe the inner workings of the human psyche, can a machine see whether or not we have a soul or not. Because we cannot feel, touch, smell, taste or see a soul and neither can a computer, yet that does not necessarily mean that souls do not exist. We simply lack the right "tools" to find if they do.



Tensor said:


> Is that supposed to be an argument against science? The beauty of the method is that it's based on repeatable observations. If one person produces a result which nobody else can reproduce, it's suspect. If many groups around the world can reproduce it, then we can give weight to the finding as reflecting some aspect of reality. This is how real progress is made.


That's actually called stasis. Because if we only are content of the result "reflecting some aspect" of reality and not the whole image we are locked in stagnancy. Just because a big number of people see the same thing does not mean it's real or true. Otherwise it's called mob mentality.



Tensor said:


> There's no a priori reason to assume that physics is the same everywhere in the universe, but observations seem to confirm that. The galaxies closest to and farthest from us appear to form and behave in the same ways.


That isn't enough proof that physical laws apply everywhere in the galaxy.
There are perhaps many places in between that even the best telescopes cannot reach into.



Tensor said:


> The two theories have, as yet, not been unified satisfactorily, but it's exciting to think that there's a framework beyond that which we haven't discovered.


Indeed that is the framework which I believe would overrule both science and spirituality in the future. If the two theories merge it would be one small step to finally understand more than what little we know now.



Tensor said:


> Especially since readers who have little or no experience with science may take your half-truths as fact.


Science 101: Accepted "facts" can be disproved.


----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

Einstein thought, and still thinks the Universe is Static. No Big Bang.

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


----------



## TerminalBlue (Feb 7, 2013)

Here is a Neil deGrasse Tyson video that goes over the basics of the evidence for the big bang. Its pretty interesting and he does a good job of putting science into perspective. It's amazing we have the tools now to help us explain some things like the expansion of the universe. We don't yet understand why the big bang happened but 100 years ago we knew a lot less. The point is we should appreciate what science can help us understand rather than be frustrated it doesn't tell us everything there is to know right away.


----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

The Big Bang never happened.

Arthur Eddington more accurately measured the background temperature of space using nothing more than the radiant energy of local galaxies, than any Big Bang theorist did with the microwave background radiation.

Let's use our brains a minute here.

If the Big Bang happened, then why are we at the center of the Universe?

Come on guys. Wake up.


----------



## TerminalBlue (Feb 7, 2013)

MrKappa said:


> The Big Bang never happened.
> 
> Arthur Eddington more accurately measured the background temperature of space using nothing more than the radiant energy of local galaxies, than any Big Bang theorist did with the microwave background radiation.
> 
> ...


We can see about 14 billion years in each direction (that's not blocked by clusters of objects) because that's the age of the universe. We can't see further than that because we have to wait for the light to travel to us to see it. However, the universe did expand faster than the speed of light so it is reasonable to believe there is material outside of what we can see. Does that make sense?


----------



## Danielf (Dec 9, 2013)

MrKappa said:


> If the Big Bang happened, then why are we at the center of the Universe?


We are not located at the center of the Universe, but are rather taking part in its global expansion.


----------



## zareba (Nov 1, 2013)




----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

Danielf said:


> We are not located at the center of the Universe, but are rather taking part in its global expansion.


Untrue, every direction you look out into, is equally distant. We are in the center.

Sure there is a technical term which refers to non-uniformity, or unequal distribution of mass, however, there is no point of origin with the Big Bang. We are dead smack in the middle.

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

In other words, there is no edge. Only the current limitations of of technology in regards with how far we are capable of peering into space.

Every few decades, the Universe keeps getting bigger, and as a result so does the age of the Universe. It is basically scalar logic.

The farther we can peer into space, the older it gets. The more we understand the items within the Universe and theorize their evolutionary properties, so does the age of the Universe increase.

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



> For a short time in the mid-1990s, the estimated age of the universe (under a then-current theoretical model of the universe) was around 10 billion years. However, age estimates for globular cluster stars in our galaxy were between 13 and 18 billion years.[1] Better estimates for the distances to the stars used in the age measurements (and the realization that the stars in question were more luminous than previously believed) brought the range of expected ages down by a few billion years. Additionally, factoring dark energy into the cosmological model pushed the age estimate for the universe to the current value of 13.80 billion years.[2]


Jezze man... didn't you know... it was slightly over a decade ago that we found these suckers...






And those are in our own backyard!

They are probably associated with terrestrial gamma ray flashes, which are thought as some of the most energetic signals in the galaxy.

http://vlf.stanford.edu/research/terrestrial-gamma-ray-flashes



> Terrestrial gamma-ray flashes (TGFs) are brief bursts of energetic gamma-rays produced in the atmosphere and observed by satellites in low-Earth orbit. First discovered in 1994 (Fishman et al., 1994), these bursts are now known to be associated with lightning


This is the man you can thank for the big bang...

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










This is what Einstein had to say...



> At this time, Einstein, while not taking exception to the mathematics of Lemaître's theory, refused to accept the idea of an expanding universe; Lemaître recalled him commenting "Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable"[12] ("Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious.")


This is an interesting tidbit... from history...

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



> A static universe, also referred to as a "stationary" or "infinite" or "static infinite" universe, is a cosmological model in which the universe is both spatially infinite and temporally infinite, and space is neither expanding nor contracting. Such a universe does not have spatial curvature; that is to say that it is 'flat'. *A static infinite universe was first proposed by Giordano Bruno, whom the Catholic church burned alive for heresy.*


This is what Einsteins competitor claimed Einstein said years after the man died.



> According to George Gamow this led Einstein to declare this cosmological model, and especially the introduction of the cosmological constant, his "biggest blunder".[1]


George Gamow is the same guy who was a key supporter of the Big Bang theory and made several attempts at guessing the CMB temperature of space. Each time he was horribly wrong. Every single time, he was horribly wrong.


----------



## Tensor (Mar 9, 2013)

Danielf said:


> This is what I am "frustrated" about. Because we have taken a discipline (called science) which only settles for half the facts instead of the whole story.


But it doesn't settle. If it had settled, we would still be working by candlelight trying to further refine the planetary epicycles. Instead, scientists the world over are working constantly on the big questions, trying to deduce the whole story. That's why we do science. I imagine that, although frustrated, you derive some sense of satisfaction from thinking that scientists are wasting their time and missing the big picture, while the answer to everything lay in less rigorous fields. In fact, scientists are not much different from you. We're all just curious people trying mightily to understand a universe which gives no quarter to its inhabitants, but to do so using a method which has proven conducive to progress.



Danielf said:


> True! A device which uses numbers and equations is far more credible than the human senses. But can a machine probe the inner workings of the human psyche, can a machine see whether or not we have a soul or not. Because we cannot feel, touch, smell, taste or see a soul and neither can a computer, yet that does not necessarily mean that souls do not exist. We simply lack the right "tools" to find if they do.


The brain is an extraordinarily complex network, but it still operates on physical principles. The main problem now, I think, is not a matter of having the technology but rather unraveling the complexity. For example, we now have a method of visualizing dreams, something that once would've been unthinkable. This advancement and others of its kind will only become more refined and commonplace in the future.



Danielf said:


> Just because a big number of people see the same thing does not mean it's real or true. Otherwise it's called mob mentality.


The crux is the weight of the evidence. Of course it's not merely seeing. If one person sees purple unicorns in his backyard, sensible people would pay no mind. If someone across the globe also sees a purple unicorn, there's probably still nothing to worry about. But then someone gets a photograph. Another person turns up a purple unicorn corpse, and DNA tests confirm it to be related to horses. In another country, an unrelated lab corroborates the DNA results with another body. Scientists show mathematically that if purple unicorns exist, so must elves. Shortly after, elves are detected outside Geneva, Switzerland.

This example is obviously ludicrous, but its point is valid: when we amass evidence for something, and that something predicts other things which are also found to be true, we must consider it reality. If we have no such standard for determining what's real or not, we can scarcely know anything at all.



Danielf said:


> Indeed that is the framework which I believe would overrule both science and spirituality in the future.


Any overarching theory which unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity will need to reproduce their successes, in addition to describing new phenomena where the others fail. This couldn't overrule science (just as those two theories didn't overrule it in their own discovery), as it would itself necessarily be a part of science.


----------



## WillYouStopDave (Jul 14, 2013)

zareba said:


>


^ :haha


----------



## Danielf (Dec 9, 2013)

MrKappa said:


> Untrue, every direction you look out into, is equally distant. We are in the center.





> WHERE IS THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE?
> 
> There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 thousand million years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion; it is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualised as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space; rather, the whole universe is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.
> 
> ...


We are just deluding ourselves and think we are special. The theory that we are the center stems mainly from religion.



Tensor said:


> I imagine that, although frustrated, you derive some sense of satisfaction from thinking that scientists are wasting their time and missing the big picture, while the answer to everything lay in less rigorous fields.


The way I see it, unless we "magically" construct spacecrafts capable of traversing almost every part of space we may never know more than what we see here... We might just get lucky and some alien race decides to share their technology with us or teach us how to astral project to other parts of space and that may be our only chances to figure how the universe works better.
Otherwise at the rate that we are going we may never know more than what has already been said.


----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

That is a spatially retarded view of the universe. The Big Bang cannot be an excuse to make things we know and experience as true to become retarded.

Next thing you are going to say is that direction, volume, density and time simply does not exist! All because you cling dearly to the words of a Catholic Belgian priest who thought that mathematics was proof of reality!

Math abstracts reality! It does not create it!

You are 99% science fiction people.



> In 1929 Edwin Hubble announced that he had measured the speed of galaxies at different distances from us, and had discovered that the farther they were, the faster they were receding. This might suggest that we are at the centre of the expanding universe, but in fact if the universe is expanding uniformly according to Hubble's law, then it will appear to do so from any vantage point.


Do you have any idea how wrong this sounds?

You are looking at something millions of light years away and conflating the idea of distance with speed of travel.

100% retarded! Look the word up. It is precisely accurate. Retarded.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=retard



> late 15c., "make slow or slower," from French retarder "restrain, hold (someone) back, keep (someone from doing something); come to a stop" (13c.) or directly from Latin retardare "make slow, delay, keep back, hinder" (see retardation). Related: Retarded; retarding.


----------



## Danielf (Dec 9, 2013)

MrKappa said:


> That is a spatially retarded view of the universe. The Big Bang cannot be an excuse to make things we know and experience as true to become retarded.
> 
> Next thing you are going to say is that direction, volume, density and time simply does not exist! All because you cling dearly to the words of a Catholic Belgian priest who thought that mathematics was proof of reality!
> 
> ...


But it is logical... how can there be a centre when the universe keeps expanding equally in all places?


----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

It is not logical.

You cannot look at an object 100 million light years away, and then claim another object 200 million light years away is moving faster.

It is simply farther away. Nothing more, nothing less.

It could in fact be moving towards us.

You yourself just said there is no center to the universe, yet you claim to understand which direction everything is moving.

Straight from the mouth of Einstein.



> *"Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious."*


His theories make predictions, provable testable theories that produce technology.

The Big Bang produces nothing and has never made any predictions. It is entirely a scalar framework that is good for nothing.

Here is a prediction that you must absolutely accept if you enforce the Big Bang theory.

As we peer deeper into space, the light that reaches us MUST be billions of years older, the farther we look, the older things get, and we MUST see the Universe in it's early stages of development, yet Hubble Deep Field is irrefutable proof that Galaxies and other objects are fully formed and no different than what is sitting right next to us.


----------



## Danielf (Dec 9, 2013)

MrKappa said:


> yet you claim to understand which direction everything is moving.


Where did I say that? 
There is no definite direction.


----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

You said yourself, or what you quoted, that redshift was proof of speed.



> In 1929 Edwin Hubble announced that he had measured the speed of galaxies at different distances from us, and had discovered that the farther they were, *the faster they were receding*.


Untrue.

Speed != Distance

I'll argue that Hubble himself made absolutely no such claim anyways.

If speed does equal distance, which it does not. Then that places us dead smack in the center of the Universe. We are not in the center of the Universe. Please, this is common sense logic.






The uploader claims...



> It is the deepest image of the universe ever taken,[1] looking back approximately 13 billion years (between 400 and 800 million years after the Big Bang)


The Earth didn't even have enough time to cool from a molten lava ball in that small a time frame.

In other words, the Universe is not made from bendy light. That may be difficult to understand, but think in straight line terms. In a straight line, the farther you look out, in theory, if the Big Bang is correct, which it is not, then the edge of the Universe should appear as if objects are closer together and more densely packed.

It is physically impossible, the Universe is NOT made from bendy light. The Big Bang is retarded.

In any event, there was a point in History before the words, "the big bang" were used. It was a 1950s or 1960s evening television show, where an astronomer went on TV and jokingly referred to the Universe as the Big Bang. The humor was not recognized and it became one of the largest pop science fads ever, and has only begun to leave the mainstream thought.

The Big Bang is quite literally a joke.

See, right here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Etymology



> Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang" during a 1949 radio broadcast. It is popularly reported that Hoyle, who favored an alternative "*steady state*" cosmological model, intended this to be *pejorative*, but Hoyle explicitly denied this and said it was just a striking image meant to highlight the difference between the two models.[37][38][39]


It is popularly reported, because that's what happened. There is no rebuttal or denial in any of those foot notes.

Back then, every single astronomer with half an education thought the steady state is the more correct version. It is in fact the more correct version.

Read the wikipedia with scrutiny. You will discover where people are totally distorting the facts without references and so on.

This for example... these people were awarded the Nobel Prize for thier work on measuring the CMB. They did not "tip the scales". There were no scales to tip, yet clearly this is how people distort history with their own personal biases.



> In 1964 Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson serendipitously discovered the cosmic background radiation, an omnidirectional signal in the microwave band.[59] Their discovery provided substantial confirmation of the general CMB predictions: the radiation was found to be consistent with an almost perfect black body spectrum in all directions; this spectrum has been redshifted by the expansion of the universe, and today corresponds to approximately 2.725 K. This tipped the balance of evidence in favor of the Big Bang model, and Penzias and Wilson were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1978.


They did not discover that the expansion of the Universe has redshifted the CMB. They simply did advanced work with scientifically measuring the CMB. Nothing more, nothing less, everyone else filled in the blanks. There is absolutely nothing about their Nobel prize being related with the Big Bang.

Arthur Eddington most accurately guessed the black body temperature of space nearly 60 years earlier, simply by using heat radiation estimates from neighboring stars and galaxies. Meanwhile all of the Big Bang proponents whose primary agenda was the Big Bang theory, as opposed to facts, made grossly inaccurate guesses, several times over.

Fred Hoyle, on the problems with the Educational System.






100% True!!!

The Big Bang is worse than the Bible.

Now you know why graduates aren't getting jobs anymore.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

It always amuses me how people with little to no rudimentary knowledge of physics appoint themselves to be the judge, jury and executioner of some of the most complex scientific theories.


----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

I don't know the difference between a ramp and a constant.

I pointed out the fact that the Big Bang is in fact, a Big Joke... it's got it's own prime time comedy.

And yeah, speed != distance...

And Degrasse is a public relations manager. Nothing more. He probably gets home and thinks "what a bunch of idiots".


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

MrKappa said:


> I don't know the difference between a ramp and a constant.
> 
> I pointed out the fact that the Big Bang is in fact, a Big Joke... it's got it's own prime time comedy.
> 
> And yeah, speed != distance...


Again, another nonsensical reply. :roll

Let me ask you a simple question. Considering the Big Bang theory (BBT) is indeed a joke, can you please in your own words tell us what the big bang theory implies and which part of it is according to your logic retarded.

A nice concise definition of the BBT would help.


----------



## beli mawr (Dec 18, 2013)

Danielf said:


> Besides not all scientists agree on exactly the same thing because not all of them see the exact same thing as the others.


Replace "scientists" with "priests" (noun. 1. a person whose office it is to perform religious rites, and especially to make sacrificial offerings; 2. a minister of _any_ religion.) and I don't see how spirituality is any different in that regard.


----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

Azazello said:


> Again, another nonsensical reply. :roll
> 
> Let me ask you a simple question. Considering the Big Bang theory (BBT) is indeed a joke, can you please in your own words tell us what the big bang theory implies and which part of it is according to your logic retarded.
> 
> A nice concise definition of the BBT would help.


I already did.

You cannot expect a point in space, infinitely packed with energy to expand, and to see no evidence of the expansion in the visible spectrum of a telescope.

You cannot say the age of the Universe is a specific time frame without finding the supposed edge, should you back the idea of the Big Bang.

You cannot claim everything is moving away from us, claim there is an edge with no proof of one, and then claim that there is no center of the Universe.

According to your Big Bang theory, we are in fact dead smack center in the middle of the Universe. Because to you, speed == distance.

I don't care how much gravitational lensing there is supposed to be, when we look deep into space, we are looking into the past, and should the Universe be spatially finite with an upper limit on the age, then you MUST be able to see that represented in telescope technology results. Plain English, common sense, basic geometry.



beli mawr said:


> Replace "scientists" with "priests"


Back then starting with George Lemaitre, it was probably the perfect reconciliation between the bible and the creation of the Universe.

God created the Universe in 7 days, and God said, let there be light.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html



> *'A Day Without Yesterday': Georges Lemaitre & the Big Bang*
> 
> After the Belgian detailed his Big Bang theory, Einstein stood up applauded, and said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory *explanation of creation* to which I have ever listened."












That's called public relations.



Albert Einstein said:


> "Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious."


100,000 Big Bang Jihadists. That's why the Big Bang Theory is both a comedy and a brutal tragedy at the same time.


----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

I think eventually everyone hits that moment where they see the forest through the trees. Someone has to get them looking at least.

No... I basically know nothing about him, other than what I read over in the wiki. Seems as if his main objective is encouraging people to take interest in perplexing and dazzling, scientific matters.


----------



## shyguyred (Jul 26, 2013)

MrKappa said:


> You said yourself, or what you quoted, that redshift was proof of speed.
> 
> Untrue.
> 
> ...


I went to college to be an astrophysics major and got A in astromy and always thought the big bang theory was convoluted way to try to shove god into science or the concept of first cause from western philosophy to me it intuitively the steady state theory would make more since.The big bang theory, has a lot of holes in it and it was proposed by a priest ,but im saying its wrong though,i really don't think its even possible to prove either theory.isnt the age and distribution of globar clusters evidence for the big bang theory though, where all the older stars are more concentrated together showing they formed around the ,same time and I could be completely wrong I took the classes years ago so don't quote me on anything.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

I note you have not given the definition for the BBT. Fair enough, let me humour you anyway.

*1.*


MrKappa said:


> You cannot expect a point in space, infinitely packed with energy to expand, and to see no evidence of the expansion in the visible spectrum of a telescope.


This is exactly what you would expect when the rate of expansion is constant in all directions.

And FYI, when ancient civilisations tried to comprehend the seemingly fixed position of the stars, the lack of visible parallax was exactly the kind of an excuse they used to support the idea of a fixed firmament. You may have included the telescope in your objection but you're making a similarly misguided assumption.

*2.*


MrKappa said:


> You cannot say the age of the Universe is a specific time frame without finding the supposed edge, should you back the idea of the Big Bang.


Why not? Care to explain instead of making these ridiculous claims. Are you even familiar with any of the age of the universe calculations?

*3.*


MrKappa said:


> You cannot claim everything is moving away from us, claim there is an edge with no proof of one, and then claim that there is no center of the Universe.


Who claims that the expanding universe has an edge?

*4.*


MrKappa said:


> According to your Big Bang theory, we are in fact dead smack center in the middle of the Universe.


According to the Big Bag theory any point in space can be treated as the centre of the universe, precisely because there isn't one.

Superimpose B with A at any point and it will appear as if all other points move away from it, making this point seem like the centre of an expansion when it's anything but.










*5.*


MrKappa said:


> Because to you, speed == distance.


I had to go back and check where you got this nonsense from and I still struggle to understand how you got from Hubbles observation of recession rates to speed=distance. A relationship of proportionality in no way suggests equality. So again, care to enlighten me?

*6.*


MrKappa said:


> I don't care how much gravitational lensing there is supposed to be, when we look deep into space, we are looking into the past, and should the Universe be spatially finite with an upper limit on the age, then you MUST be able to see that represented in telescope technology results.


See point one.

*7.*


MrKappa said:


> Plain English, common sense, basic geometry.


If by common sense you mean your ability to misunderstand even the simplest of scientific concepts then I'm not surprised you arrive at your ridiculous conclusions. Oh, and by the way, the spacial curvature geometry is anything but basic.



MrKappa said:


> God created the Universe in 7 days, and God said, let there be light.


Yeah, that says it all...:roll


----------



## Danielf (Dec 9, 2013)

beli mawr said:


> Replace "scientists" with "priests" (noun. 1. a person whose office it is to perform religious rites, and especially to make sacrificial offerings; 2. a minister of _any_ religion.) and I don't see how spirituality is any different in that regard.


When it comes to plain information I would say religion can get only like 10% while science can get around 50%. See what I mean by "half facts"?
For example gravity is a definite fact here but it may in fact not be a fact in another place similar to ours. That's why I say that it's a half fact because it isn't an absolute.

@ MrKappa: You are forgetting that the Big Bang is a theory. It is not entirely proven. But the alternative (gods and demons) you have to admit is way more absurd.
If you do not believe in the Big Bang theory then what do you believe in then? What is your theory and hypothesis?


----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

I am 100% Einstein on this one. The cosmological constant, similar in vein as Newtons Big G.



Azazello said:


> Why not? Care to explain instead of making these ridiculous claims. Are you even familiar with any of the age of the universe calculations?


I don't understand how you can ignore everything said thus far, and claim that some of the greatest thinkers and scientists of of yesterday, and today, are considered ridiculous.



Azazello said:


> According to the Big Bag theory any point in space can be treated as the centre of the universe, precisely because there isn't one.


Can you try thinking for yourself, using common sense. Normal stuff. Logic.

The very definition of the Big Bang is starting point in space time. The core requirement for the Big Bang is that at some point in space time, everything began.

In any event, I am in the camp which thoroughly believes that space time is infinite. That all matter cannot be destroyed, yet matter can indeed be recycled and has been doing so forever.

http://www.thewire.com/national/2014/03/scientists-find-unprecedented-black-hole/358755/



> a black hole surrounded by a bubble of hot gas, which is heated by two jets just outside the black hole, powerfully shooting out energy in opposite directions, acting like cosmic sandblasters pushing out on the surrounding gas."
> 
> ... ... ...
> 
> Though MQ1 itself is relatively small, the jets surrounding it span wider than our entire solar system.


Giant recycling stations. Seems as if plenty is escaping...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_jet#Relativistic_jet












> Relativistic jet. The environment around the AGN where the relativistic plasma is collimated into jets which escape along the pole of the supermassive black hole


That's for starters.



Azazello said:


> So again, care to enlighten me?


Yeah, all things in the Universe are not moving away from each other uniformly at the same speed. There are in fact galaxies which are slamming into each other and colliding due to the attraction force of Gravity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interacting_galaxy#Galaxy_collision



> Colliding galaxies are common in galaxy evolution. Due to the extremely tenuous distribution of matter in galaxies, these are not collisions in the normal sense of the word, but rather gravitational interaction. Colliding may lead to merging.


They are in fact colliding. Same difference.

Redfshift is a potential indicator of distance, which seems reasonably solid, however I have to scrutinize that concept itself every now and then, seeing the sheer number of lunk heads that populate the mainstream thought with their religions. Red Shift is no indication of speed and direction, or movement.



>


Yeah, looks as if that's exactly what one might expect to see in a distortion with parabolic geometries.

It does not give any evidence of a Big Bang. None. Absolutely none. Otherwise if you want to look at that and claim it's evidence for the Big Bang, then you can fess up and admit you are claiming that we are dead smack in the middle of the Universe, which we are not.

Do you understand what the CMB looks as and how it distorts from our current perspective in the Universe?






https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050215spacetemp.htm



> *Temperature of Space*
> 
> The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is popularly believed to prove the Big Bang. That proof is spot on-if you allow a big enough spot. One of the first predictions was that it would indicate a "temperature of space" of 5 Kelvin (5K). That prediction was revised upward until it reached 50K shortly before the CMBR was discovered. When the discovery measured it to be only 2.7K, the Big Bang proponents claimed it and ignored the size of the spot required to cover the gap.
> 
> They also ignored a long history of other predictions from other theories that required much tinier spots. In 1896, Charles Edouard Guillaume predicted a temperature of 5.6K from heating by starlight. Arthur Eddington refined the calculations in 1926 and predicted a temperature of 3K. Regener predicted 2.8 in 1933.


----------



## Danielf (Dec 9, 2013)

http://www.cracked.com/article_16583_the-5-scientific-experiments-most-likely-to-end-world.html

That Large Hadron Collider sure looks like a lot of fun lol. :b


----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

I am no particle physicist, however, what popular myths surround the LHC, are probably more easily digestible by the majority of us. Personally the only practical application that I believe it probably serves is nuclear fusion power research. It's a green politics world though, so anything that went against peoples personal beliefs about the environment are probably not worth speaking of.

Anyways, I guess that I should note, I do believe that matter and energy can be created and destroyed under the right circumstances, however those circumstances are yet to be discovered.

I believe alot of weird things. Specifically I think that the Earths water is created, or transmuted in the sky...

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=509201

...and that there is something fundamentally correct about pleizonuclear physics.

http://www.nature.com/news/italian-scientists-win-battle-to-halt-controversial-research-1.10823



> The Italian research minister, Francesco Profumo, has bowed to pressure from Italian and international scientists and agreed to take a closer look at a proposed nuclear research programme at one of the country's leading institutes. He has also withdrawn his nomination of a proponent of the controversial research for the institute's scientific council.


----------



## Azazello (May 12, 2013)

No offence, Kappa, but being able to copy and paste links does not make you any more knowledgeable on the subject of cosmology as has already been demonstrated by your ignorance of the most basic principles in physics, which you have just reinforced by comparing cosmological constant with Newton's gravitational constant, the former of which Einstein himself called his "biggest blunder" because it validated the theory of an expanding universe.

And yes, I have no problem in saying that Einstein was wrong with regard to the expanding universe, just like he was wrong about Quantum Mechanics. 

What I do have a problem with is you making these asinine over-inflated self-assured claims without having any clue as to what your are talking about or being able to back up any of it by anything other than argument from authority, indirect insults and out of context cherry picked links and pictures. An example of this would be your suggestion that one can not determine the age of the universe without it having an 'edge'. I suppose you can produce an example of current calculation of the age of the universe and point out its mathematical errors. After all this is what is expected from someone trying to debunk a particular calculation. 

You suggest I think for myself, use common sense, logic. I'm sorry but as I previously stated I'm not sure you are familiar with the concept of common sense or logic. When someone asks you to demonstrate where you got the speed=distance from and you go off on a tangent of colliding galaxies - that's not logic. When a question is asked of you 'who claims that the universe has an edge' and you evade it entirely - that's not logic. When a person demonstrates to you how in spacial geometry it is possible to have each point seem like the centre of the universe and you instead start blabbering on about it not being the proof of big bang when it was never meant to be one - that's not logic.

It seems every single point that you have raised in your post #36 is either a figment of your over-active imagination or an indication of your zero understanding of physics/cosmology. And instead of addressing the issues with these you start playing Whac-A-Mole by picking random bits of information to derail the conversation with and making new unsubstantiated claims. 

Though others, like ThatGuy11200 might choose to entertain your wilful ignorance I, unfortunately, do not have the patience as gladly as they do. Frankly I should've stopped when I read the "God created the Universe in 7 days, and God said, let there be light" nonsense.


----------



## Danielf (Dec 9, 2013)

Azazello said:


> No offence, Kappa, but being able to copy and paste links does not make you any more knowledgeable on the subject of cosmology as has already been demonstrated by your ignorance of the most basic principles in physics, which you have just reinforced by comparing cosmological constant with Newton's gravitational constant, the former of which Einstein himself called his "biggest blunder" because it validated the theory of an expanding universe.
> 
> And yes, I have no problem in saying that Einstein was wrong with regard to the expanding universe, just like he was wrong about Quantum Mechanics.
> 
> ...


 Seriously Kappa your arguments so far have been like this: The Big Bang doesn't exist because the Mystical Sky Daddy created us and thus because we are special he put us right in the center of the whole universe...


----------



## MrKappa (Mar 18, 2013)

Azazello said:


> the former of which Einstein himself called his "biggest blunder" because it validated the theory of an expanding universe.


Einstein is not on record ever saying that.

His competitor is on record saying that in his final memoirs, years after his death. The same guy who made several attempts at guessing the temperature of the CMB, all which were by far the most inaccurate of any attempts made. The "father" of quantum teleportation.



Azazello said:


> You suggest I think for myself, use common sense, logic.


Whip out the ol flux capacitor and use heresy and conjecture.

Didn't you even watch the video from the ESA?

Your ignorance is not uncommon.

I'm going to go watch a documentary on prehistory clovis and maybe follow up with a few lectures from Harvard.



Azazello said:


> When a person demonstrates to you how in spacial geometry it is possible to have each point seem like the centre of the universe and you instead start blabbering on about it not being the proof of big bang when it was never meant to be one - that's not logic.


A theory with no testable predictions, or as you believe, nothing solid, is no theory.

The Big Bang is quite literally, retarded.



Azazello said:


> which you have just reinforced by comparing cosmological constant with Newton's gravitational constant


In mathematics, PI, G, and a cosmological constant are all constants. They are absolutely comparable.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter. A constant. There is little differentiation in these basic concepts. Both represent unknown forces or matters that bind together and fill in the blanks of solid, real world working theory.

I'm simply discrediting the Big Bang as a plausible theory and shining light in history where the true innovators and realists are.


----------



## shyvr6 (Feb 18, 2008)

Several posts have been deleted/edited. Please debate in a civil manner without the insults. This will be the only warning.


----------



## Danielf (Dec 9, 2013)

MrKappa said:


> A theory with no testable predictions, or as you believe, nothing solid, is no theory.
> 
> The Big Bang is quite literally, retarded.


Care to elaborate? Have you even read about the Big Bang? 
And you keep dodging my question: What do you believe in if not the BB?


----------



## beli mawr (Dec 18, 2013)

Danielf said:


> When it comes to plain information I would say religion can get only like 10% while science can get around 50%. See what I mean by "half facts"?
> For example gravity is a definite fact here but it may in fact not be a fact in another place similar to ours. That's why I say that it's a half fact because it isn't an absolute.


I wasn't identifying anything as factual. I was merely replying it is absurd to say that science can not be taken as fact as opinions within the field differ; but religion can taken as truth, yet each differs from the other.


----------



## Danielf (Dec 9, 2013)

beli mawr said:


> I wasn't identifying anything as factual. I was merely replying it is absurd to say that science can not be taken as fact as opinions within the field differ; but religion can taken as truth, yet each differs from the other.


Well scientists in the past referred to "laws" while modern day scientists try to avoid this term and instead refer to new insights as "hypothesis" and "theories". After all science, math, physics etc. are precise subjects and thus to say that something is a fact while doubt remains doesn't really give it justice.


----------



## HelpfulHero (Aug 14, 2013)

You are lost brother. I would recommend you read Wittgenstein's Tractacus:

http://people.umass.edu/phil335-klement-2/tlp/frames.html


----------



## Danielf (Dec 9, 2013)

I'm not one for books... hell the only books I read are fantasy books from authors like Terry Pratchett but atm I am mostly interested in going out with friends rather than staying home and reading.


----------



## Tensor (Mar 9, 2013)

HelpfulHero said:


> You are lost brother. I would recommend you read Wittgenstein's Tractacus:
> 
> http://people.umass.edu/phil335-klement-2/tlp/frames.html


Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.


----------



## HelpfulHero (Aug 14, 2013)

Danielf said:


> I'm not one for books... hell the only books I read are fantasy books from authors like Terry Pratchett but atm I am mostly interested in going out with friends rather than staying home and reading.


You can't understand modern physics without advanced mathematics. There are certain expressions which cannot be written verbally which is why there is so much misinformation in popular media about physics. Wittgenstein is a great intro to philosophy that begins making one think in terms of math without using mathematical language like thinking in terms of shapes, colors, etc. Also, you seem similar to him in mental mien if that makes sense. I will say it to you flat out YOU SHOULD NOT BE SPECULATING ABOUT THIS STUFF VERBALLY if you do you'll make mistakes and it will be a waste of time. If this stuff interests you and it gnaws at your soul until you cannot take it anymore you will learn mathematics and put in the hard work. Until then I can only give you approximations of what I know and I am not nearly as deep in this stuff as I would like to be. Not saying this to be a jerk, just saying because I struggled with that myself for many years.


----------

