Agnostic.com

14 1

Do you believe the big bang theory?

While I accept that it is the current leading scientific theory, I feel like it isn't that much better than a creationist belief. I mean, it's much much better than creationism.. but it still feels too supernatural to me.

I believe that the universe is infinite in all aspects, including age. That it has always existed and always will. With no beginning, no point of creation, no need for a creator.

View Results
FatherOfNyx 7 July 5

Post a comment Reply Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

14 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

It's not 'supernatural' or on par with 'god dunnit'. It's a scientific theory, held to the same standards as other scientific theories.

Just because something is a scientific theory doesn't mean it is correct. As I detailed somewhere below, the leading scientific theory on where birds went in the winter was that they hibernated like mammals. That theory was held as a fact for 1,800 years until we learned they migrate.

@FatherOfNyx I know this. The comments about it being 'supernatural' and on par with creationism are preposterous, however. The Big Bang is what the evidence points to. It's not a sky wizard or faith.

@maturin1919 There are still supernatural aspects, you have to visualise it. It's said that a single point, no bigger than speck of dust, contained an infinite amount of energy that exploded and expanded in a fraction of a second into an area that is billions, maybe trillions of light years across. It's essentially saying that the singularity expanded faster than the speed of light to give birth to a universe where nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. That's some sci-fi stuff right there.

@FatherOfNyx Nothing about that is supernatural.

0

This is my personal take on the Big Bang: It's like a bag of unpopped popcorn. You heat it up, one pops and soon a bunch are popping. Lots of big bangs. Lots of verses.

0

Do you believe you are one day older today?.... The big bang works pretty much on the same principle (No need to get all scientific nut here to understand that)

2

The Big Bang theory was first proposed by a Roman Catholic priest.

Lemaitre, from Belgium

1

I wouldn't be surprised to find out our big bang occurred after a previous universe collapsed in on itself. Our universe is about 14 billion years old, but I wonder if this was the first universe or is just the current one

That is a very interesting though. If the universe eventually lose its battle against gravity then it will stop and then reverse back to a singularity, then another big bang and another cycle begins. The creepy thing about that possibility is that there is no possible way to keep anything for the next cycle. Everything is lost and there is no way to tell if we are living another cycle or if this is the first one. Since we are self centered we like to believe this is the first one. An even more creepier concept is that every new cycle will be a new beginning to start all over from the very basic step we don't even know how did it happen. The world would br a different place, different geography, different countries, different languages but that version of humanity likely would be bound to discover the same math... There would be another Newton, anothe Einstein but all with different names and personal stories...oh we could dwell on this one.... Enough for now

1

Like many things in life, I'm always open to a better explanation

4

It's the best explanation that fits the current evidence. As we learn more and gather more evidence, the theory will improve, and may be replaced by something more accurate.

It's the best we can do until we can do better.

0

in July 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson made a discovery that would cement our understanding of how the universe came into being. Their detection of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), the radiation left over from the birth of the universe, provided the strongest possible evidence that the universe expanded from an initial violent explosion, known as The Big Bang. Today, the CMB is still one of the most important signals that helps us understand the cosmos

1

I believe that the BBT is plausible. It's currently the best theory that explains the origins of the universe. Considering that creationism is based solely on a fictional book and is nothing more than a myth it holds no more consideration than any other myth. The BBT is based on scientific evidence such as the fact that the universe is expanding. Large particle accelerators have also been useful in confirming some of the details of the Big Bang.

1

I have a tendency to believe in things like gravity because they will kill me but everything else is open for discussion

2

I don't believe in anything I'm an empiricist

5

Hubble has taken pivtures of the aftershock cased by the big bang ....we have evidenceit happened!!

If you're talking about the cosmic background radiation, another explanation for it could be that it's light that was red shifted into the infrared and x-ray spectrum. We know visible light gets red shifted, so it seems like common sense that it can be shifted from visible red to infrared to x-ray. If that is the case, then it could very well explain cosmic background radiation.

@FatherOfNyx Isn't that exactly how the CMB is explained already? It is the photon spectrum from the time when electrons/protons formed hydrogen rendering the universe transparent but red-shifted by the universe's expansion since that time into the microwave spectrum.

When you say you disagree with the big bang, aren't you also disagreeing with the universes expansion which is the result of winding the expansion backwards?

@RPardoe Yes and no. Since the CMB is everywhere, it's assumed that the photons weren't created from stars or galaxies but rather from the original matter that formed after the big bang. I think there is a good chance that the CMB is photons emitted from galaxies pretty much right before they crossed the boundary of our observable universe.

And no, I don't disagree with expansion. Not sure what you mean by unwinding expansion, but we don't know exactly why the universe is expanding. We know it's from dark energy, but we don't really know what that consists of yet. I agree with most of all the observations we make (redshift, expansion, CMB), just don't agree with the beginning.

@TheAstroChuck You are correct in your first statement, I got them mixed up. I should have said microwaves rather than x-rays as they are on opposite sides of the spectrum.

2

If it seems supernatural, you need to study the findings more. If there is a better explanation, please share.

The supernatural part comes in when the majority of scientists say the universe is most likely infinite, but began from a single point. So a single point (the singularity) contained an infinite amount of energy and when released, created a universe that is infinite in size. That's just way too supernatural for me. Plus, the big bang theory was built on a misconception. When we first truly looked out into the cosmos and say the universe was expanding, it looked like an explosion with us in the center, it was called the cosmic explosion from the primordial atom before it became the big bang. We now know that is incorrect, there is no actual center of the universe, that we can see anyway. It only appears we are at the center due to expansion. If you were to view the universe from any other galaxy, that universe would appear to be the center as well.

The alternative is that the universe never had a beginning, that it has always existed. I actually have a working scientific theory revolving around this concept that uses all the proof of the big bang (expansion, redshift, cosmic background radiation), but I have yet to draft a working paper to submit. Have a lot going on in my personal life that is taking up my time, but it's about to smooth out and I'll be getting to work on it.

Also, if you keep up to date with findings, you'll notice a trend. Astronomers are finding that distant galaxies are older than what they should be. Rather than rethink the big bang, they altered it and said "well, this just means the early universe evolved faster when it was young for whatever reason". I can almost guarantee that once the James Webb telescope goes up, they're going to see galaxies that are even older than what they should be based on the current theory.

@TheAstroChuck [map.gsfc.nasa.gov] Straight from NASA. If you dig around and take in everyone's opinion on a finite/infinite universe, you'll see that most all claim that there is one aspect of the universe that is infinite. Whether it os finite in energy and infinite in size or able to infinitely expand, it's there.

2

The Big Bang theory is not only false - its ridiculous.

gater Level 7 July 5, 2018

Prove it. We'll wait...

Can you give any evidence to that opinion?

@Kafir Time and space are both infinite - no beginning. - That's a fact.

@gater Is it a fact? If so, please provide your evidence. Still waiting...

@Kafir Its a conclusion that's arrived at logically. Space and time have to be infinite.

@gater Logic is not proof. Logic is used to analyze proof. What proofs led you to your conclusion?

Space being infinite or finite can't technically be proven one way or another. If you say it is finite and travel with me to the boundary, I can just say you can't prove there isn't something beyond that. If you say it is infinite, you could travel with me for an infinite amount of time/distance and show me it goes on forever, but I can just say that you can't prove there is a boundary beyond what we traveled. But, if you go with the theory with the least amount of assumptions, that would be the universe being infinite. You only need to assume that it keeps going. With it being finite, you have to make numerous assumptions about its limits. Where the boundary is, how much it contains, what happens when its limit is reached and many more assumptions.

Wrong see my comment above

You need to back up your comments.

Why is the big bang theory false and ridiculous?

@gater So, you're saying that the universe always existed in (more or less) its current form? Keep in mind that we do know that the universe is expanding which indicates that the universe was once much smaller in size. Also, there is no reason to believe that space nor time are infinite, especially since we don't truly understand exactly what time is.

@Charles1971 Yes, if you could go back in time a trillion years it would look basically the same. Space does not expand. And yes, both space, time, matter, are all infinite. That's an absolute truth.

@Charles1971, @Ellatynemouth The premise of the Big Bang theory is "proof" of the beginning of the Universe. But if the Universe has always been here - which it has - the BB theory has to be false.

@gater Well, I'm sure you've spent many years researching this after receiving your degree in astrophysics. Though I would like to read your findings in the peer reviewed scientific journals that have published your research.

@Charles1971 Astrophysicists know stars, galaxies etc. They don't necessarily know infinity. Some philosophers know infinity, and what it means. Its not only true, but its an absolute truth, meaning it has always been true and always will be true.

@gater philosophy ???? I philosyphise have a giant penis ...so everyone this must be true ...ffs do you actually listen yourself ??

@gater

Your description doesn't address the issue of expansion. The big bang is not proof.

@gater Okay, you and "some philosophers" know things simply due to your inherent wisdom and magical knowledge of the universe? Or is it based on some factual data. Making claims that you "know" something is as utterly baseless as religious people "knowing" that their god is real. You can't simply claim is real or true and it magically becomes so. That's just wishful king.

@Ellatynemouth The way I address expansion with an infinite universe is with black holes. I hypothesize that when black holes consume matter, they actually release all the "empty" space within atoms. Like they say, atoms are 99.99% empty space and we don't exactly know if a black hole consumes that as well or not. So with a super massive black hole in the center of a galaxy, it'll consume matter while releasing empty space, causing expansion. It won't push the matter within the galaxy out because the gravity of the black hole is stronger and holds it in, but beyond that it causes expansion. We are pretty sure black holes evaporate and we see plumes of radiation and hydrogen coming from the poles of black holes.. So it isn't unreasonable to think they can emit space or energy. Anyway, once a black hole essentially recycles energy and matter back into the most basic form of empty space and is released, it causes galaxies to expand away from one another (provided the gravity between them isn't stronger than the rate of expansion) and eventually cools, starting the process all over again of galaxy formation. To sum it up, black holes consume matter while releasing the empty space within, causing galaxies to expand away from one another, then the space released cools and condenses giving birth to new black holes and galaxies that continue the cycle of expansion. I'm sure the next question would be what is the universe expanding into, but if it's infinite, it would be expanding within itself. Anyway, that's how I connect expansion and an infinite universe.

@Charles1971 With an understanding of physics and logic the conclusion is clear.

@gater So, you are claiming to have a better understanding of physics than scientists who have spent years studying astrophysics? You must be one of the smartest people in the world. Why haven't you written some books to set all these mistaken scientists in the right direction?

@Charles1971 That's what they tell me.

@FatherOfNyx Space does not expand. The Universe is already infinite - there's nothing to expand to. Scientists see objects moving apart and they claim expansion - no - its just objects moving apart.

@gater I mean, that's literally what expansion is. The space between galaxies increases and makes the galaxies move away from one another. You have to remember, when we look at another distant galaxy, it is physically moving away from us due to the space between us increasing. The reason cosmology calls it expansion and not movement is because any movement is relative to us. If we look at a galaxy and it's moving away from us at 3/4 the speed of light, if intelligent life in that galaxy looks at our galaxy, our galaxy will appear to be moving away from them at 3/4 the speed of light. So any galaxy we observe, whatever the rate at which it is moving away from us, we are moving away from them at the same time.

But visually, we are not moving.. the universe only appears to be moving away from us. If we look at a galaxy that is 7 billion light years away and it's moving away from us at half the speed of light.. and directly opposite of it at 7 bly, it too is moving away from us at half the speed of light. So we are stuck directly between 2 galaxies that are moving away from us at the same speed. Thing is, if either one of those galaxies were to observe our galaxy, we would appear to be moving away from them at half the speed of light. That'd be silly though because that would mean we are moving 2 completely opposite directions at the same time.

So that's why the movement of galaxies is consider expansion and not movement.. because all movement is relative to the observer.

@FatherOfNyx What you are saying is galaxies are expanding - that's fine. Space itself, does not expand.

@gater Most physicists and cosmologists view space as a "sea" of virtual particles. When they discuss expansion, their not talking about those virtual particles as expanding, but increasing in amount between 2 points. So the space between 2 galaxies is increasing, which is technically expansion.. ergo space is expanding.

@FatherOfNyx That's matter moving apart - space does not expand.

@gater Semantics my dude. Arguing that space isn't expanding is like arguing that zero isn't actually a number or that black isn't a color.

@FatherOfNyx Well what you are saying is partially true. That's why we must agree on definitions. Space itself does not expand.

@gater And can you define space? We don't know exactly what space is physically made up of. What we do know is that the further we look out into the universe, the faster galaxies move away from us. Because of that, we know there is a standard.. which is about 70 km/sec per megaparsec or 3,260,000 light years. So something that is 32,000,000 light years away will be moving away from us at a rate of 140 km/sec. At the same time, from their perspective, we are moving away from them at a rate of 140 km/sec. That is why it is not looked at as conventional movement. From the perspective of each point, they are sitting still and the rest of the universe is moving away from them. Taking both points of perspective into account, you are left with the amount of space is increasing between the 2 points. That is the space between the 2 points expanding its area between 2 points, expansion. So until you can define what space physically entails, you can't say it isn't expanding as it clearly is.

@FatherOfNyx It clearly isn't. Hold your hands in front of you and pretend to be holding a basketball - see that empty area between your hands? That is space, its no different than any space in the Universe. Space does not expand or contract, space can not be created or destroyed, the space that is here has always been here. It can be occupied, partially occupied or empty.

@gater So, your definition of space is... space? That's cool.. lol. Like I said, you can't say it isn't expanding without first determining what space physically entails. Until you do, all you got is "space is space".

This reminds me of the people who say dark energy doesn't exist, and then you remind them that dark energy is just a place holder for unknown energy and that it's ridiculous think there is no energy out there that is currently unknown us. Then they go "Oh yeah, you're right.. We don't know everything about the universe, but still, dark energy doesn't exist."

Let's try another approach. Instead of you just saying that galaxies are moving and me trying explain expansion, why not explain (in detail) how galaxies are moving? Bear in mind, galaxies that are near the edge of the observable universe are moving away from us near the speed of light and anything outside of our observable universe is moving away from us faster than the speed of light. They aren't actually traveling faster than light speed, just faster than light speed relative us. So how are they moving like that?

@TheAstroChuck You are so clueless - Clueless Chuck - it fits.

@FatherOfNyx Let me hear your definition of space

@gater We've switched gears to you explaining how the galaxies are moving..

@FatherOfNyx "We don't know exactly what space is physically made up of." Seriously, are you stupid?

@gater

You say ask these things, but you don't back them up. If you research dark matter and dark energy, you'll see it being discussed in the context of an expanding universe.

I believe the observable universe is expanding within an infinite universe.

But there is no proof and I am not qualified to say that the universe has been here forever and is infinite. No one knows.

@Ellatynemouth I know - it is infinite - space does not expand.

@gater

It is interesting chatting to you.

You ridicule someone who worked at NASA and you assert things without providing evidence.

@gater

Gater. If you just looked at TheAstroChuck's profile.. He is not "clueless".

I'm sure you don't mean to be rude. You often label those who criticise Trump as being 'rude'.

@Ellatynemouth Ive provided solid logical arguments that go right over their heads.

@gater Dude, all you've done is basically state that the universe isn't expanding and that they are only moving, but you have yet to detail how they are moving. And yes, we don't know what space is made up of. If we did, we would know what dark energy is. What we do know is the space between galaxies is increasing.

So I will ask again, how are galaxies moving?

@FatherOfNyx But if it is expanding, it must have boundaries.

@FatherOfNyx Black is not a color, at least not to artists eyes.

@FatherOfNyx Momentum

@gater How do you explain the speed galaxies are traveling then? Because we know that a galaxy near the edge of the observable universe is moving away from us near the speed of light. Based off everything we currently know about the observable universe, galaxies outside the observable universe would be moving away from us faster than the speed of light. How does momentum explain that?

@FatherOfNyx Can you offer proof of their speed?

@gater The proof comes with the redshift. We can gauge the distance of a galaxy by measuring the brightness of supernova. If the galaxies were simply moving from momentum, the redshift measurements would increase at a set rate compared to their distance. They don't though, redshift increases exponentially with distance.. and the best explanation for that is because they are moving away from us faster and faster with distance.

Now I ask you, what proof, or even reasoning, do you offer that you claim galaxies are only moving with momentum?

@FatherOfNyx Based on brightness? Sounds like more silly science. That's not proof of speed. - I don't know if its because of momentum, that's my guess. I do know the Universe in infinite with no beginning.

@gater No, that is not what I said. Please comprehend. Brightness is the proof of distance. Redshift is the proof of speed. There are stars and supernovae that have a maximum brightness. We use those to gauge distance, just like how we can gauge the brightness of a light on Earth and calculate its distance. That is not how they calculate speed. Speed is calculated by measuring the redshift of light.. like how we can do on Earth.

@gater What I am trying to tell you that your guess has been theorized and calculated by numerous scientists already and it has been shown to be more than just momentum. If it were momentum, that would mean our galaxy is the center of the universe with galaxies traveling away from us.. with some traveling faster than the speed of light. That would destroy a galaxy. Galaxies that are 3.5 billion light years away would be travelling away from us at 1/4 the speed of light.. and that too would wreck the galaxy. If it were just momentum at those speeds, galaxies would be leaving trails of stars and whole solar systems in their wake. I am all for the idea of a truly infinite universe, but I am trying to tell you that you are just simply wrong about it being momentum. There is more going on than just simple movement, and the best descriptor for what is going on is expansion.

@FatherOfNyx your science and theories are flawed. Space is already infinite - it can not expand. This is a simple, basic and true concept.

@gater Ok boo, even though you have no evidence or even logical reasoning for believing what you believe, you keep on keeping on. Enjoy your bliss.

@FatherOfNyx lol you are funny. The Universe is either infinite or finite. I say its infinite. You claim its finite - explain to me what lies outside of your finite universe. Im guessing Fantasyland.

@gater Have you not been paying attention? I made this post because I believe it is infinite and an infinite universe contradicts the big bang. Kind hard to have a conversation with someone who isn't even paying attention. Just because I believe it is infinite and don't believe in the big bang doesn't mean I am going to ignore the observations we've made, such as expansion.

Your whole argument is "space is infinite so therefore it isn't expanding". Let me ask you this. If you had an infinite amount of apples already, but when you were at the store and saw some apples for sale that looked delicious. You decide to buy 10 of them. Guess how many apples you have. You still have an infinite amount. You don't have am infinite amount plus 10.

If something is truly infinite, you can add or subtract or multiply or divide by any amount are you're still left with an infinite amount.

If space is infinite, which I believe it is, you can add or take away space and you'll still be left with an infinite amount of space. That is what is happening between galaxies, the amount of space between them is increasing.. and that still leaves you with infinite space in the universe.

@FatherOfNyx It is Infinite. It can not be expanding if it is already infinite - don't you get that?

@gater You're letting your limited human brain put a limit on what it means to be infinite.

@FatherOfNyx I am? you seem to be the one the doesn't understand what infinity means

@gater I'm not talking about infinity. Infinity is a noun, a value used in mathematics. I'm talking about what it means to infinite. If you have an infinite amount of something, no matter what you do to it.. add to it, take away from it, multiply it by 38,365,104.. you still have an infinite amount. A truly infinite universe would be able to expand infinitely for an infinite amount of time because no matter what happens, you still have an infinite universe.

@FatherOfNyx No - you aren't getting it - The Universe has always been infinite - it can not get bigger - its already infinite. Its not the same as a number that you can always add 1 to.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:123238
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.