The Big Bang Theory: Half of Americans 'Doubtful' it Happened
236 replies, posted
The evidence we have collected fits with the model of the Big Bang, perhaps the theory isn't fully correct but with what we know so far it doesn't seem impossible.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Bhd5845.gif[/img]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Image macro" - JohnnyMo1))[/highlight]
To be honest, It's a Theory, it's yet to be proven still, otherwise it will be a law already. Same thing with the Theory of Evolution, it's yet to be proven many times to conclude that it's law...
[QUOTE=darkedone02;44612599]To be honest, It's a Theory, it's yet to be proven still, otherwise it will be a law already. Same thing with the Theory of Evolution, it's yet to be proven many times to conclude that it's law...[/QUOTE]
it's like the people who espouse this opinion never bother to ever learn what those terms actually mean, even though they are almost always well explained earlier in the thread
How does someone justify that there is reason within the event of the big bang? To infer some logical or reasonable knowledge from the Big Bang we must view the event or phenomenon that occurred in precedent of it.
For example, I decide to walk to the store for some food, why? Because I am hungry. Why am I hungry? Because the last meal I had was 6 hours ago. Why was my last meal 6 hours ago? Because I was working in-between. Why was I working in-between those 6 hours? Because I need money. etc.. etc..
So what we can conclude with the above example is that for every phenomenon there is a consequence or result (Think of a domino trail). We can employ this for every phenomenon all the way back to the Big Bang, but then a issue arises. What is the phenomenon and what reason exists within that phenomenon to eventually result in the big bang? Why is the phenomenon that scientists label as the 'Big Bang' begin reality as we know it?
[QUOTE=Arctic Snow;44612616]How does someone justify that there is reason within the event of the big bang? To infer some logical or reasonable knowledge from the Big Bang we must view the event or phenomenon that occurred in precedent of it.
For example, I decide to walk to the store for some food, why? Because I am hungry. Why am I hungry? Because the last meal I had was 6 hours ago. Why was my last meal 6 hours ago? Because I was working in-between. Why was I working in-between those 6 hours? Because I need money. etc.. etc..
So what we can conclude with the above example is that for every phenomenon there is a consequence or result (Think of a domino trail). We can employ this for every phenomenon all the way back to the Big Bang, but then a issue arises. What is the phenomenon and what reason exists within that phenomenon to eventually result in the big bang? Why is the phenomenon that scientists label as the 'Big Bang' begin reality as we know it?[/QUOTE]
Cosmic Inflation was probably what caused the Big Bang.
[QUOTE=Ziks;44612671]Cosmic Inflation was probably what caused the Big Bang.[/QUOTE]
I will be an honest man and state that I did read a short summary of Cosmic inflation yet I am abstaining from learning anymore about it as it will consume too much of my time.
Also, what discomforts me about your statement is that you use the word 'probably' in reference to the origins of the UNIVERSE. 'Probably' is a very dangerous word when trying to convince someone of existential foundations.
Again, you may state that it is Cosmic Inflation that is the phenomenon which subsequently resulted in the Big Bang. However then another issue arises as to what phenomenon was precedent to the Cosmic Inflation?
I will give you a hint on my position. Any suggestion of a phenomenon which attempts to answer the origins of reality will be debunked by an inquiry as to WHY or WHAT the phenomenon is a consequence of. There is no such thing as an origin (regardless of if you believe in religious doctrine or scientific explanation) because there absolutely needs to be a phenomenon for the initial phenomenon to occur, something that we as humans are incapable of finding.
This is why religion and faith is so powerful. One merely states "because GOD." without needing a precedent to explain Him as a phenomenon.
This thread hurts my head.
and balls.
-snips-
[QUOTE=darkedone02;44612599]To be honest, It's a Theory, it's yet to be proven still, otherwise it will be a law already. Same thing with the Theory of Evolution, it's yet to be proven many times to conclude that it's law...[/QUOTE]
Look up what scientific theory, scientific law and hypothesis are, then come back and see how dumb comment you've made.
[QUOTE=Arctic Snow;44612708]I will be an honest man and state that I did read a short summary of Cosmic inflation yet I am abstaining from learning anymore about it as it will consume too much of my time.
[/QUOTE]
This is your first mistake right there. Please understand it first.
[QUOTE=KD007;44612778]This is your first mistake right there. Please understand it first.[/QUOTE]
As I stated before I am abstaining from it as it will take too long. Yes, I am aware that I am allowing my ignorance to take the best of me. However you have chosen to only reply to a certain portion of my post. It would be cool if you gave your opinion on the other parts.
[QUOTE=Arctic Snow;44612787]As I stated before I am abstaining from it as it will take too long. Yes, I am aware that I am allowing my ignorance to take the best of me. However you have chosen to only reply to a certain portion of my post. It would be cool if you gave your opinion on the other parts.[/QUOTE]
Probably is not a dangerous word either. Big Bang theory is a scientific hypothesis based on the laws we know of in our universe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for my take on it, it's a little weird. Basically, it touches on how the universe supposedly "inflated" in the matters of a split second. It's this very strange detail that makes me believe that the Big Bang wasn't the start of it all (yet I have very to no little doubts that it has taken before our common era from this rough vantage point in space/time/whatever else). There might be some multi-dimensional trickery with the universe and our perception of it.
[editline]22nd April 2014[/editline]
By multi-, I mean greater than the four we commonly measure with, space and time. And my opinion is not nearly as credible as the big bang theory, don't take this the wrong way. I'll draw a line to split my bullshit.
[QUOTE=Arctic Snow;44612708]This is why religion and faith is so powerful. One merely states "because GOD." without needing a precedent to explain Him as a phenomenon.[/QUOTE]
That's come nice cognitive dissonance there, why is "GOD" exempt from cause and effect?
[QUOTE=Arctic Snow;44612787]As I stated before I am abstaining from it as it will take too long. Yes, I am aware that I am allowing my ignorance to take the best of me. However you have chosen to only reply to a certain portion of my post. It would be cool if you gave your opinion on the other parts.[/QUOTE]
If you want to choose an origin of the universe then the logical choice would be the big bang theorem. If you want to believe in something else, then that is fine, but it isn't a logical choice due to the nature of science being an experimentally driven concept relying on observation of physical phenomena. Nowhere will you find a different theory with such overwhelming evidence as the big bang model has and so it is actual quite illogical to ignore the theory created on what we merely observe and then choosing to believe in something else for whatever reason you have, which probably doesn't have any evidence.
And for cosmic inflation, there is probably a precise mathematical description of it, go find it and understand it first before criticizing it.
[QUOTE=danharibo;44612843]That's come nice cognitive dissonance there, why is "GOD" exempt from cause and effect?[/QUOTE]
God may as well be exempt from cause and effect, considering the fact that God by definition is [b]outside[/b] of our universe. This is just metaphysics, however, because we may very well never see beyond what we're inside of.
But still, Leibniz always left me wondering: why something rather than nothing? Fuck if we'll ever know...
[QUOTE=darkedone02;44612599]To be honest, It's a Theory, it's yet to be proven still, otherwise it will be a law already. Same thing with the Theory of Evolution, it's yet to be proven many times to conclude that it's law...[/QUOTE]
People like this guy grind the hell out of my gears.
How hard is it to stay awake in at least one of the science classes you've ever taken?
"Hypothesis" is the equivalent of what people like you say a "theory" is.
"Theory" is the equivalent of what you refer to as a "law." Theories have been tested and peer reviewed and confirmed by countless recreations of the experiment(s) done to conclude that a hypothesis must be true. Then, and only then, does something become a theory, or "as close to the truth as we can possibly get at this time."
And a "law" is just something that always happens the same way, sort of an observation that never changes.
[QUOTE=KD007;44612822]Probably is not a dangerous word either. Big Bang theory is a scientific hypothesis based on the laws we know of in our universe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for my take on it, it's a little weird. Basically, it touches on how the universe supposedly "inflated" in the matters of a split second. It's this very strange detail that makes me believe that the Big Bang wasn't the start of it all (yet I have very to no little doubts that it has taken before our common era from this rough vantage point in space/time/whatever else). There might be some multi-dimensional trickery with the universe and our perception of it.
[editline]22nd April 2014[/editline]
By multi-, I mean greater than the four we commonly measure with, space and time. And my opinion is not nearly as credible as the big bang theory, don't take this the wrong way. I'll draw a line to split my bullshit.[/QUOTE]
"multi-dimensional trickery" :v:, look man thanks for explaining it to me, really appreciate it.
Here's what I have to say on Cosmic Inflation.
Science, and the scientific knowledge and theories that spawns with it are in a constant state of flux and dynamic. Scientists are presenting new theories on the nature of reality and the origins of the universe that result in old theories becoming obsolete. This is the beautiful imperfection of science, the inability to understand every piece of information.
One day we believe that the universe is comprised of our village only, then we believe it is comprised of only the Earth, then we believe that it is within a system of planets, then a galaxy, then a cluster of galaxies, then a collection of a cluster of galaxies.. and so fourth. Our perception of reality is always limited to the tools, knowledge and methodologies of our current paradigm. So today the majority of people believe that the universe begins with the Big Bang, and there is nothing wrong about that, yet perhaps after a certain number of years the majority of people will accept and believe in the Cosmic Inflation theory as the initial point of the universe. So which is 'correct'? Science attempts to find the answer to the universe but what happens is that only more questions arise as we dig deeper.
So what should you take out of this? The fuck do I know. Perhaps that there never is or ever was a beginning, but we as a civilization will only get deeper and farther into what we believe is the actual initial phenomenon constantly developing and replacing theories. We will always be desperate to discover the True beginning, however then the proposition is place fourth.. what begins the beginning?
[editline]22nd April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Rct33;44612850]If you want to choose an origin of the universe then the logical choice would be the big bang theorem. If you want to believe in something else, then that is fine, but it isn't a logical choice due to the nature of science being an experimentally driven concept relying on observation of physical phenomena. Nowhere will you find a different theory with such overwhelming evidence as the big bang model has and so it is actual quite illogical to ignore the theory created on what we merely observe and then choosing to believe in something else for whatever reason you have, which probably doesn't have any evidence.
And for cosmic inflation, there is probably a precise mathematical description of it, go find it and understand it first before criticizing it.[/QUOTE]
Yes I agree that the scientific explanation is debatably the most solidified answer to the origins of the universe. Also yes, believing in a religious explanation is less logical. That however does not excuse that fact that the scientific explanation is not 100% justifiable and prone to fallacy. In comparison to a religious answer, it triumphs in reason, however that does not make it absolute.
I did not criticize the Cosmic Inflation Theory, I said I did not want to learn more about it. Too lazy.
[QUOTE=Arctic Snow;44612946]"multi-dimensional trickery" :v:, look man thanks for explaining it to me, really appreciate it.
[/QUOTE]
Think of a 3d projection 4-sphere. If you rotate it on the 4th axis, which you don't perceive, it will look like it's changing and that more and more spheres seem to "appear" out of the center infinitely. In reality the shape never changes, and you're just looking at the same two sides one after another in a loop. I find it interesting how the Big Bang presents itself in a similar fashion. It seems to "inflate" out of a point in the universe.
Now, I'm not saying that the universe is a perfect hypersphere, but it could be something along the lines of.
[QUOTE=Arctic Snow;44612708]However then another issue arises as to what phenomenon was precedent to the Cosmic Inflation?[/QUOTE]
Not enough personal space.
[QUOTE=Ziks;44612671]Cosmic Inflation was probably what caused the Big Bang.[/QUOTE]
No.
[QUOTE=Falubii;44613151]No.[/QUOTE]
No?
[QUOTE=Ziks;44613186]No?[/QUOTE]
No. The inflationary period occurred after the big bang.
[QUOTE=Lijitsu;44613044]Not enough personal space.[/QUOTE]
Welp, its over guys, centuries of scientific and technological progress have led us all to this enlightening and euphoric moment. Let us all worship our divine father and savior, Lijitsu; a true God among men.
So you wanna fuck me in the doggy position or reverse cowgirl? Only the most generous options for you my master.
The inflation is still happening. Next stop: black hole matter vs vacuum.
Imagine mankind survived for that long I'd fucking hate to be them :v:
[QUOTE=KD007;44613013]Think of a 3d projection 4-sphere. If you rotate it on the 4th axis, which you don't perceive, it will look like it's changing and that more and more spheres seem to "appear" out of the center infinitely. In reality the shape never changes, and you're just looking at the same two sides one after another in a loop. I find it interesting how the Big Bang presents itself in a similar fashion. It seems to "inflate" out of a point in the universe.
Now, I'm not saying that the universe is a perfect hypersphere, but it could be something along the lines of.[/QUOTE]
You've provided some insight and a basis for the Cosmic Inflation theory, though it was kind of a challenge to grasp the idea of it. Perhaps some day I'll will attempt to learn more about quantum-mechanics, metaphysics, and the nature of the universe. Though today I shall continue my leisure.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44613198]No. The inflationary period occurred after the big bang.[/QUOTE]
Which Big Bang are we talking about? The start of space-time or the start of our universe?
[QUOTE=Ziks;44613297]Which Big Bang are we talking about? The start of space-time or the start of our universe?[/QUOTE]
Those are the same thing as far as we know.
These surveys study people's stubbornness more than actual beliefs. Anyone not retarded knows that the big bang can't be proven unequivocally and they dislike the question and feel like saying "yes" is like saying they, who know very little about the bang theory, blindly trust other people (scientists, who they probably dislike), and are essentially stupid and small.
So OF COURSE they are gonna try and retain their dignity by saying they are "not confident" whether it happened.
Looking at this from a different angle, hell, I'm not "confident" it happened, if I'm completely honest, simply because it's too ethereal of a concept. I mean, sure, I 100% accept that it's the current accepted theory, and that it's quite unlikely that's gonna change because there's a shitload of evidence for it. That I do know for sure.
But am I confident it happened? Logically, yes. Intuitionally, absolutely not.
[QUOTE=Arctic Snow;44613224]Welp, its over guys, centuries of scientific and technological progress have led us all to this enlightening and euphoric moment. Let us all worship our divine father and savior, Lijitsu; a true God among men.
So you wanna fuck me in the doggy position or reverse cowgirl? Only the most generous options for you my master.[/QUOTE]
God forbid someone dare to make a joke after several posts giving an actual answer to the question.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44613302]Those are the same thing as far as we know.[/QUOTE]
I was thinking in an Eternal Inflation sense where different pocket regions of space have their own Big Bangs.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.