The Big Bang is Bunk.

The Big Bang is not much more then another version of creationism. What do you think.

 

My reaction is sparked.

 

.

 

i think it's a beautiful idea.

and it makes more sense to me than any 'god' does.

 

.

 

What I'm trying to say is that it isn't logical. Go look at the stars. Good science is based on repeatablity. Has a singularity ever been observed to explode? Isn't that the same as "Let there be light" I would like to see the math for that. There is no know mechanism for black holes (a small singularity) to explode so why would an all encomposing singularity just sudden decide to explode. I understand how people generally think in finite terms, things with begining and endings like their lives and the physical space on Earth but the universe is not that way, it is infinite. No can ever prove that it is not. Infintity is also a rather transcendent property, in that it can never been seen on Earth or in anything except the universe itself. Big bang theorists base size and age of the universe (again finite thinking) by what they can observe. Certainly things explode in space, maybe even large areas of filiment structures. The fact that all measure galaxies in space have been measure to be traveling away from one another and not from a central point(where the singularity was) must mean something. The sky is dark at night because more than 90% of measured mass is in the form of dark energy, overall ambient radiation is extreme long wavelenght is not visible. Also by the way none of the theories that support the big bang are laws.

 

How is the big bang creationism and superstring theory a great theory? Both are theories but with on major difference, the Big Bang has evidence supporting it. Superstring theory is currently just speculation and its looking like it may even be thrown out before anyone bothers to test it. The Big Bang however, may not be correct as there are some results that conflict with it and it does create a couple of awkward phenomenon such as inflation, however there is also a lot of supporting evidence so like most thing it'll probably turn out to be 'along the right lines'. Superstring theory however, well, its nice maths.

 

A little math goes a long way. Math can describe the motions of the planets and galaxies very accurately along with many other physical phenominon. The math in superstring theory describes things which humans do not have the technology to even test yet. Big bang theory is the opposite. No math to desribe the event, but secondary observations that are plugged in to support it. Much of Einsteins theories are mathmatical in nature that have yet to be proven true or false because of the lack of technology to actual test. Math is a higher language with perfect symbolic logic.

 

We already have one--the "Paranoid?" forum:

http://hipforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=46

Home of that LONG moon landing hoax thread.

Now if we could only KEEP that crap over there...

 

.

 

It would be nice to get rid of the moon landing rubbish. Im not sure if this is a conspiracy thread, its not really science either but a drivel forum might not go down to well.

 

How would one explain the 5K background radiation without the big bang?

 

I love you!

 

i think the big bang is based on less 'scientific' evidence then any of the religious belief systems. also seem more highly unlikely then any of them too.

 

Phenomenon such as the CMBR, anisotropy and homogeneity of the universe and red shift all indicate that the universe was all in the same place at some point in the past. If it wasnt for inflation it would all be a very nice theory.

 

Bleh I mean isotropic not anisotropic. Although the universe is locally anisotropic but due to gravity.

 

bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla

 

bla

 

What intrigues me is to try and imagine beyond the big bang theory. If it were true and if all the matter in the universe was centralized and then suddenly BOOM!, then what was before the big bang?

Now I am no physicist but I'll do my best to express my ideas.

When people think of the big bang, they think of a straight linear timeline beginning with the big bang and going on in a straight line. What if it were more like a circle. What if there was no beginning to the universe and no end either. Just matter expanding and contracting ad infinitum.

Almost as if the universe was a giant balloon. This balloon starts out very small and then suddenly it is filled with air (Big Bang). It expands rapidly for a few trillion years and then begins to slow down due to gravity. Eventually it stops expanding and starts contracting. It then contracts faster and faster and faster and faster until it is really small again and back to the way it was in the beginning. And then suddenly BOOM! and the cycle repeats itlself.

What if gravity counteracts the big bang? Matter is thrown apart in every which way and then the force of gravity between the celestial objects eventually pulls them all together until they are all together and then they are thrown apart again.

This idea of an infinite amount of big bangs is kinda cool. It accounts for what was before the big bang and what will happen after gravity pulls all matter in the universe together again. It makes sense in my mind, but again, I am no physicist nor do i claim to be one.

 

bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla