big bang theory - many problems

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: warcrow

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode?

Exactly. I'm not really a religious man (even though I was raised to be, and was baptised), but this is what keeps me from being an atheist. Where did it all start? The universe had to come from somewhere. Something had to create it. Not just some huge explosion. It just doesnt make sense to me.

Good link, thanks!

Why does this mean there has to be a god? Because there had to be an ever-existing entity to create the universe? Why couldn't the universe be this entity itself?

interestingly enough, I didnt say a god. But, if you want to reffer to something that created us as god (when I say created, I dont mean adam and eve....I'm a beleiver in evolution), then I guess so.

 

[iwearnosox]

If God made everything then who made God?

At some point you have to believe something came from nothing, a concept that's difficult to grasp. So we invent God and don't question his omnipotence.

My opinion: God doesn't exist, he's merely there as a crutch to the insecure or otherwise short-minded.

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: warcrow

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode?

Exactly. I'm not really a religious man (even though I was raised to be, and was baptised), but this is what keeps me from being an atheist. Where did it all start? The universe had to come from somewhere. Something had to create it. Not just some huge explosion. It just doesnt make sense to me.

Good link, thanks!

Yes nothing can explode. Because nothing is made up of matter and antimatter trying to maintain balance. The side affect of this is an extra "matter" popping out and Boom. Instant universe. One day all protons (all matter) will decay in the effort to maintain this balance and again there will be nothing. Then guess what? Boom. More something.

 

[silverpig]

That site really does not know what is going on.

First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode?

That's not really a problem with the theory. It's something that is out of the scope of the theory. General relativity doesn't explain this either, nor does quantum electrodynamics, or perturbation theory (although they are all probably going to be used in an explanation eventually). That's like saying the Bible is completely invalid because it can't tell me if I should get a Golf or a Mini Cooper.

This is contrary to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter). Where did Space, Time, Matter, Energy, and Information come from?

No it doesn't. It violates it if you ASSUME that there was nothing before. The big bang theory only describes the evolution of the universe; it says nothing about where it came from.

Next, how did this explosion (or "expansion") cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in recorded history caused only disorder and disarray? Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?

The second law states that the entropy of the entire system can not spontaneously decrease. It fully allows decreases in some areas, provided that they are coupled to an increase somewhere else.

Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Holy fvck. This is probably the stupidest thing I've read thus far. A little gravity and an encounter here and there can change things greatly. There are a LOT of things that can happen in a mechanical system to set this up. A quick read of a few mechanics texts and he'd realize this. Furthermore, conservation of angular momentum means that the sum total of all angular momenta in any particular state of a system must be equal to the sum total of all angular momenta in a later (or earlier) state. Two things spinning with 1 unit of "up" momentum today can evolve into one object with an angular momentum of 1 unit "down" and the other object with 3 units "up"... It's not really all that hard once you learn about negative numbers.

 

[warcrow]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge

Originally posted by: warcrow

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode?

Exactly. I'm not really a religious man (even though I was raised to be, and was baptised), but this is what keeps me from being an atheist. Where did it all start? The universe had to come from somewhere. Something had to create it. Not just some huge explosion. It just doesnt make sense to me.

Good link, thanks!

Yea, cause everybody knows that the bible has a much better explanation for it.

The Bible has endured criticism for 6.000+ years.

The Big Bang theory doesn't even come close

6000 years?....

Didn't we have an argument that the Earth was 4,000 years old?

earth is much much older!

 

[silverpig]

Finally, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and "clumps". If the Big Bang was true, shouldn't all the matter be (roughly) evenly distributed?

Inflation theory of small quantum mechanical fluctuations which are well observed...

What these people have to realize is that theories like this ARE NOT AN ATTEMPT TO KILL GOD. They attempt to explain observed data. The big bang does not preclude the existence of a creator.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: her209
What's the difference between these two questions:

Where did the universe come from?

Where did God come from?

Should I be surprised that no one decided to address this comment?

Like all scientific theories, the "Big Bang" theory tries to explain the facts about the evolving universe as we know them as completely as possible. It does not attempt to explain how the initial conditions just prior to the "Big Bang" came about. The "Big Bang" theory tries to push the boundaries of the unexplained back quite a ways, but obviously leaves questions on the other side of that boundary unanswered.

It's both funny and sad that people who can put their faith in "God" (meaning that they require no logical explanation for his existence now or before the creation of the universe) can argue that a scientific theory like the "Big Bang" isn't worthy of acceptance (i.e. always subject to modifications as new facts and better theories are discovered -- not immutable "belief") because it doesn't answer all questions. Quite the double standard!

 

[Turkish]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg
whois big-bang-theory.com

Registrant:
All About God Ministries, Inc.
7150 Campus Drive
Ste. 320
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80920
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com
Domain Name: BIG-BANG-THEORY.COM
Created on: 12-May-03
Expires on: 25-Feb-05
Last Updated on: 24-Feb-04

Administrative Contact:
Outlaw, Greg greg@allaboutgod.com
All About God Ministries, Inc.
7150 Campus Drive
Ste. 320
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80920
United States
7198842246 Fax -- 7198842247
Technical Contact:
Outlaw, Greg greg@allaboutgod.com
All About God Ministries, Inc.
7150 Campus Drive
Ste. 320
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80920
United States
7198842246 Fax -- 7198842247

Yeah, real objective.

Own3d

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Finally, the Big Bang Theory contradicts observed phenomena. For example, the Big Bang Theory is unable to explain uneven distribution of matter throughout the universe resulting in galactic "voids" and "clumps". If the Big Bang was true, shouldn't all the matter be (roughly) evenly distributed?

Inflation theory of small quantum mechanical fluctuations which are well observed...

What these people have to realize is that theories like this ARE NOT AN ATTEMPT TO KILL GOD. They attempt to explain observed data. The big bang does not preclude the existence of a creator.

The only conclusion I have been able to reach about this that people WANT to fight over the obvious.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Legendary

Originally posted by: warcrow

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode?

Exactly. I'm not really a religious man (even though I was raised to be, and was baptised), but this is what keeps me from being an atheist. Where did it all start? The universe had to come from somewhere. Something had to create it. Not just some huge explosion. It just doesnt make sense to me.

Good link, thanks!

The idea is that time is infinite in both directions, and the Universe goes through cycles of collapse->big bang->expansion->collapse.
At least I think that's the current idea.

Do you have any background info on that? It has always been my personal theory - the way i reason it is that energy is a constant (and hence the conservation of energy laws). And hence forth there is a givin amount of energy in the universe. Now its been proven that you can convert energy to mass and vice versa, which would suggest that at some point the universe could've been pure energy rather than mass. So maybe just maybe this bing bang stuff come in cycles, when the mass off the universe is large enough that will stop the expansion and begin to contract to the point where there is just one point and boom....

Funny thing to ponder about, seeing as you have a finite amount of mass and an infinite amount of time, this very exact moment must've happened before and will happen again infinitely many times (the precise arrangement of all matter and energy that makes up this very moment that is)

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Legendary

Originally posted by: warcrow

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode?

Exactly. I'm not really a religious man (even though I was raised to be, and was baptised), but this is what keeps me from being an atheist. Where did it all start? The universe had to come from somewhere. Something had to create it. Not just some huge explosion. It just doesnt make sense to me.

Good link, thanks!

The idea is that time is infinite in both directions, and the Universe goes through cycles of collapse->big bang->expansion->collapse.
At least I think that's the current idea.

do you have any background info on that? It has always been my personal theory - the way i reason it is that energy is a constant (and hence the conservation of energy laws). There is a giving amount of energy in the universe and it has been proven you can convert energy into mass and mass into energy.

Which theory do you mean? The Big crunch where everything collapses or that everything decays and returns to nothing only to form again?

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Legendary

Originally posted by: warcrow

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode?

Exactly. I'm not really a religious man (even though I was raised to be, and was baptised), but this is what keeps me from being an atheist. Where did it all start? The universe had to come from somewhere. Something had to create it. Not just some huge explosion. It just doesnt make sense to me.

Good link, thanks!

The idea is that time is infinite in both directions, and the Universe goes through cycles of collapse->big bang->expansion->collapse.
At least I think that's the current idea.

do you have any background info on that? It has always been my personal theory - the way i reason it is that energy is a constant (and hence the conservation of energy laws). There is a giving amount of energy in the universe and it has been proven you can convert energy into mass and mass into energy.

Current data suggests the universe will now expand without end. 70% of the universe is "dark energy" constituting a cosmological constant in the form of a vacuum energy that has a negative pressure. It acts against gravity to push things that are very far apart even further apart. The universe seems to be expanding more quickly now than it was a few billion years ago. A sattelite is currently being built which will attempt to gather better data and perhaps plot the history of this expansion.

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Legendary

Originally posted by: warcrow

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode?

Exactly. I'm not really a religious man (even though I was raised to be, and was baptised), but this is what keeps me from being an atheist. Where did it all start? The universe had to come from somewhere. Something had to create it. Not just some huge explosion. It just doesnt make sense to me.

Good link, thanks!

The idea is that time is infinite in both directions, and the Universe goes through cycles of collapse->big bang->expansion->collapse.
At least I think that's the current idea.

do you have any background info on that? It has always been my personal theory - the way i reason it is that energy is a constant (and hence the conservation of energy laws). There is a giving amount of energy in the universe and it has been proven you can convert energy into mass and mass into energy.

Current data suggests the universe will now expand without end. 70% of the universe is "dark energy" constituting a cosmological constant in the form of a vacuum energy that has a negative pressure. It acts against gravity to push things that are very far apart even further apart. The universe seems to be expanding more quickly now than it was a few billion years ago. A sattelite is currently being built which will attempt to gather better data and perhaps plot the history of this expansion.

yeah i've read about that actually, apparently the expanding faster rather than slower. I remember hearding about the dark energy in my physics class too... crazy stuff

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: halik

Originally posted by: Legendary

Originally posted by: warcrow

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode?

Exactly. I'm not really a religious man (even though I was raised to be, and was baptised), but this is what keeps me from being an atheist. Where did it all start? The universe had to come from somewhere. Something had to create it. Not just some huge explosion. It just doesnt make sense to me.

Good link, thanks!

The idea is that time is infinite in both directions, and the Universe goes through cycles of collapse->big bang->expansion->collapse.
At least I think that's the current idea.

do you have any background info on that? It has always been my personal theory - the way i reason it is that energy is a constant (and hence the conservation of energy laws). There is a giving amount of energy in the universe and it has been proven you can convert energy into mass and mass into energy.

Current data suggests the universe will now expand without end. 70% of the universe is "dark energy" constituting a cosmological constant in the form of a vacuum energy that has a negative pressure. It acts against gravity to push things that are very far apart even further apart. The universe seems to be expanding more quickly now than it was a few billion years ago. A sattelite is currently being built which will attempt to gather better data and perhaps plot the history of this expansion.

Yep, dark energy is the big puzzler. One thought is that gravity may not be completely attractive, but at huge scales it is repulsive. Another thought is that it is a characteristic of spacetime itself, and not some fifth force or a manifestation of another. All wild speculation right now.

 

[fredtam]

Genesis as I see it.

1:1 Void
1:2 vacuum fluctuation within the void causes big bang
1:3 the void is now filling with energy and the universe is shaped
1:4 particles begin to form due to matter/antimatter imbalance and elements begin to appear
1:5 stars and galaxies form due to gravity
1:6 our sun is formed
1:7 our solar system takes shape
1:8 moon impact creates life on earth
1:9 humans argue over how it all happened

Now to Revelations

1:1 time from a thought standpoint is infinite. It exist when there is nothing
1:2 the universe will keep expanding
1:3 all matter is decaying there is no conservation of matter and energy
1:4 we again reach equilibrium between matter and antimatter
1:5 there is nothing but void
1:6 in this void there are vacuum fluctuations
1:7 big bang again


Edit: Just my redneck thoughts.
Some Revelations that make this pretty irrelavent;

1. The sun will explode
2. We are scheduled to collide with another galaxy.
3. Odds are an ELE will happen before any of these (asteroid, nuclear winter,etc.)
4. Everything eventually freezes anyway. Moving somewhere else just prolongs the inevitable

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: warcrow

Originally posted by: TuxDave


Didn't we have an argument that the Earth was 4,000 years old?

earth is much much older!

harrrrrrr..... naaaaaaaaaw really?!!? I was referring to an older ATOT thread where some religious person was trying to prove the earth was 4,000 years old. And in case you couldn't figure out that I was kidding. Lemme put in a coupe extras.

 

[Match]

Well, silverpig already brought up the relevant points I was going to make. Descartes already caught the "coversation of mass and energy" so I can't poke fun at that now. There are already plenty of partially thought out or partially explained ideas thrown out by other people that I don't really need to add my own. Fun thread. I guess I'll just nef.
:beer:

 

[Joker81]

Didn't any of you guys see Men In Black. We are just in a huge marble being played by huge ass aliens.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Yzzim

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge

Originally posted by: warcrow

The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?" Can nothing explode?

Exactly. I'm not really a religious man (even though I was raised to be, and was baptised), but this is what keeps me from being an atheist. Where did it all start? The universe had to come from somewhere. Something had to create it. Not just some huge explosion. It just doesnt make sense to me.

Good link, thanks!

Yea, cause everybody knows that the bible has a much better explanation for it.

The Bible has endured criticism for 6.000+ years.

The Big Bang theory doesn't even come close

ANd...? That is hardly a valid reason to choose one over the other. In addition, why exactly to atheists have to believe in the Big Bang theorM?

 

[spunkz]

the site doesnt presume that presenting problems with the big bang theory means you must accept creation as the alternative. thats why they present their own arguments for creation. i think its an excellent site that brings to light some disturbing evidence that is used in modern science textbooks to prove the big bang as well as prove evolution as the mechanism for the introduction of the human species.

 

[glen]

Another problem with the Big Bang theory is it does not explain the order of the books on my book shelf.... but then again, it is not intended to explain that or any of the other problems they list.

 

[glen]

Who decided that if the Big bang is true, God does not exist?
I don't think you can find a sane person who denises the existance of a prime mover.
teh natuer of the prime mover is up for grabs, but that the big bang happened is pretty solid.
And, you can still believe in God.
To find comflict between science and God is so silly. You have to twist God, or Science to make a conflict.

 

[glen]

Big Bang Theory: The Major Problems in Summary
The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?"

True.
It also does not tell use who will win the super bowl.
It does not proport to do either of these things, therefore NOT doing them, is not a problem.
Believeing it is supposed to explin these things, IS a problem.

Can nothing explode?

Not that we know of.
Something started the big bang.
We do not know what existed before the big bang.
That is different from saying "We know what existed before the big bang and it was nothign ness."

This is contrary to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter).[/q[
No, the web page maker is just an idiot.

Where did Space, Time, Matter, Energy, and Information come from?

We don't know.

Next, how did this explosion (or "expansion") cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in recorded history caused only disorder and disarray?

I think anyone with a high school understanding of physics will tell you it does NOTcause order. Entropy IS increasing and no laws are being violated.

Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?

No, the web page just doesn't understand highschool level physics.

Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Again, no it does not.
How are people this dumb?
Public school?

 

[Goosemaster]

THe fact of the matter is that both are THEORIES. They both have evidence to back them up, but it is not conclusive without being somewhat subjective.

Think back to JJ THomson's Plum-pudding model of the atom. He was indeed correct that there were elctrons in atoms, but was unaware of the central positively charged mass we know as the nucleus, much less the chargeless neutrons.

Just as with JJ Thomson's theories, there are many elements that explain our composition and detail that we have not yet discovered because we haven't thought of it yet or the technology is not there yet. as with the origins of nuclear-acknowloging chemistry, it is imperativethat we not dwell on theories too much to allow them to traverse into the realm of dogma.

For now I am an agnostic.

I agree to an extent that evolution has played a substanial role in existance, or better yet, our survival. We are here today after THOUSANDS AND THOSANDS OF YEARS because of this inherenet adaptability that more or less every creature exhibits. THis is however a theory, and not dogma.

As for the existance of a God, I find both Pro and con arguments to be theoretical as well. Perhaps it is societal desensetization at work, but I see humans as highly mentally developed species in comparison tho the worlds other species. I do not see anything devine about our existance except the awe for such an epic history I will not however, afford myself the luxury of denying or approving the existiance of a god. I do not hunger for an answer as so many people do, so undecisisiveness is not a problem for me when it comes to this.

As for the big bang, one must realize that laws are still theories but with a great deal of certainty.

Law as it is attributed to science is basically a highly revised and somewhat concrete theory


It is my assumption that scientific Laws are still just theories. THe availability of possibilities that could render these" laws "subjective" only to certain parts of the universe is something to consider. With quantum mechanics, we are delving deep into uncharted waters, and we should not be sureprised if something as revered as the laaw of conservation of mass does not apply. One should not be oblivious to the fact that the microscopic might be different that the macroscopic. Keep in mind that many laws are relative only to what man has found approachable. For example, acceleration on earth has been found to relate to gravity anywhere from the nucleus of an atom to the effects on bodies surrounding black holes.....remember these were theories, mut now e have seen and examined black holes...yet we still find situations where laws such as the conservation of monetum-linear and angular- are somehow brought back into theory.


In summary, most everything remains a theory because we ignore the possibility that it may be subjective, regardless of its seemling concrete proof.

Subjectiveness has definitely gotten us somewhere, but jsut wait until we hit the next "brick wall"

 

[fredtam]

Originally posted by: glen

Big Bang Theory: The Major Problems in Summary
The Big Bang Theory has some significant problems. First of all, the Big Bang Theory does not address the question at hand: "Where did everything come from?"

True.
It also does not tell use who will win the super bowl.
It does not proport to do either of these things, therefore NOT doing them, is not a problem.
Believeing it is supposed to explin these things, IS a problem.

Can nothing explode?

Not that we know of.
Something started the big bang.
We do not know what existed before the big bang.
That is different from saying "We know what existed before the big bang and it was nothign ness."

This is contrary to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Conservation of Matter).[/q[
No, the web page maker is just an idiot.

Where did Space, Time, Matter, Energy, and Information come from?

We don't know.

Next, how did this explosion (or "expansion") cause order while every explosion ever observed and documented in recorded history caused only disorder and disarray?

I think anyone with a high school understanding of physics will tell you it does NOTcause order. Entropy IS increasing and no laws are being violated.

Consequently, the Big Bang seemingly violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increased Entropy). What organized the universe after the singularity?

No, the web page just doesn't understand highschool level physics.

Besides conflicting with the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics, the Big Bang Theory contradicts the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum. For example, how does the Big Bang Theory explain "Retrograde Motion" (the backward spin of some planets and the backward orbits of some moons) without violating the Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

Again, no it does not.
How are people this dumb?
Public school?

Actually all of the questions on that site can be answered with current theories based on observations and experiments. If someone hasn't tore his theories completely apart by morning I will. Unfortunately I have to be up in 3 hours. Hopefully the universe and ATOT will still be here when I wake up.