Science Admits They Made Up Everything About the Big Bang - Page 4

Langrisserx · #31 12-09-2013, 04:18 PM

didnt r00ts dad like, stab his mom

singol29 · #32 12-09-2013, 04:40 PM

So, my thoughts are... The big bang doesn't actually say that the whole universe was a tiny singularity the size of a marble or something, more like the whole universe was incredibly hot and dense before expansion started. The only reason we tend to think of a small point is because our observable universe is only about 27.4 billion light years across (the farthest we could possibly see into space due to the speed of light) but the universe probably doesn't have a border. So, everywhere is where the big expansion everywhere (the big bang) started. Also, the Bible didn't say how God created everything. Construction pays my bills by the way.

radditsu · #33 12-09-2013, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Einstein never failed math.

Raavak · #34 12-09-2013, 05:10 PM

Through red shift aren't we measuring all galaxies and deep space objects as moving away from each other? I suppose there could be another explanation of that someday.

And even if there is some truth to the rainbow wave theory. Like most things in modern physics, it raises more questions than it answers.

radditsu · #35 12-09-2013, 05:11 PM

The Ripley's believe it or not guy made that (and tons of other shit we think is true today) up.

singol29 · #36 12-09-2013, 05:22 PM

I don't understand where the hate against the big bang is coming from. Everything was condensed, not singular. Everything moving away from everything else, causing the red shift (Doppler effect) is because* the expansion started everywhere. Everywhere is the center of the universe because it has no boundaries. No boundaries= no center= no singularity.

radditsu · #37 12-09-2013, 05:24 PM

If the big bang did not happen, I would love the scientific community to use evidence and testing to prove/disprove the theory. The entire name "big bang" was a dig at a the theory in its inception that was taken over by the scientific community as it grew. In the beginning the theory was thought as ludicrous and "poppycock" to use the parlance of the times. Same way "obamacare" was a dig at the plan in its inception and was then turned into a slogan by Barry.

True scientists tests theory after making a hypothesis of a possible conclusion. More tests, more of a clear picture. One must always take into account that you can and WILL be wrong. Universal constants are not discovered everyday for a reason.

However, lets take our little owl trolling fuck. He takes any hole in science to turn it over to a religious debate. Religion has a conclusion and makes evidence to fit, kinda like those ancient aliens shows. Bad Science can and does exist due to misinformation and obfuscation. Kinda like those ghost shows!

Either way it would be heralded as a giant "meh" by real scientists, who really just want to work on problems instead of trying to make a religion based on scientific theory.

Kagatob · #38 12-09-2013, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by singol29 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't understand where the hate against the big bang is coming from.

A troll.

singol29 · #39 12-09-2013, 05:29 PM

By the way, I don't disagree with the rainbow theory. Its interesting, but what it explains is pretty much the same beginning of the universe that already exists. It just seems to me like it adds a better understanding to the mechanics of the existing model.

DrKvothe · #40 12-09-2013, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You didn't read this new study, which offers compelling evidence for its viability and would make a theory, in your own definition.

Actually, r00t, YOU didn't read this new study. There's not a single experiment in the paper. No data, no evidence, just speculation and mathematical descriptions.

"So far we have no conclusive evidence that this is going on," says Giovanni Amelino-Camelia, a physicist at the Sapienza University of Rome who has researched the possibility of such signals.
--from that Scientific American article you linked

r00t, this isn't religion. It's actual inconsequential how the universe began; what's important is that we figure it out. Our understanding and manipulation of nature is what makes us human. Scientists backpedal all the time as old data is reinterpreted or new data is collected. Sometimes it takes a while for someone to have a really great idea.