# Stuff and Things > HISTORY, veterans & science >  The Big Bang

## Robert

This seems to be accepted by a good many lay people.

That a mass of nothing managed an explosion labeled the big bang.

Was there really a big bang?  What happened to it takes sound to be heard?  I mean a bang is noise in air. But in a vacuum?

Take the moon. And you carry dynamite with you. And there you light a fuse and the dynamite looks like it exploded. But what would explode?

An explosion happens in air. The Moon has no air. Ergo no explosion nor big bang.

Correct?

----------

donttread (04-16-2022),Swedgin (04-14-2022)

----------


## OneDumbBlonde

I don't buy into that theory, but I do like the sitcom.

----------

donttread (04-16-2022),QuaseMarco (04-12-2022),Robert (04-12-2022)

----------


## Knightkore

{I'm sorry I thought THIS was the big bang.....}

----------

Canadianeye (04-12-2022),Robert (04-12-2022)

----------


## OneDumbBlonde

> {I'm sorry I thought THIS was the big bang.....}


Dude.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

WHY?! 


lol

----------

Canadianeye (04-12-2022),Knightkore (04-12-2022)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> This seems to be accepted by a good many lay people.
> 
> That a mass of nothing managed an explosion labeled the big bang.
> 
> Was there really a big bang?  What happened to it takes sound to be heard?  I mean a bang is noise in air. But in a vacuum?
> 
> Take the moon. And you carry dynamite with you. And there you light a fuse and the dynamite looks like it exploded. But what would explode?
> 
> An explosion happens in air. The Moon has no air. Ergo no explosion nor big bang.
> ...



Another entirely fallacious post from an idiot that knows nothing about science.  The Phrase "Big bang" is a populist media buzzphrase  not a scientific description coined by Fred Hoyle during a BBC radio program.  It wasnt even an explosion, it was an eruption of energy as 4 of the 11 dimensions of our founding  Calabi Yau manifold decompactified, which was caused by  a random quantum fluctuation on the particular 2-Brane concerned

I would now normally write a detailed  explanation of what this all means, but for you I cant be arsed. Go and read some proper physics, maths and cosmology books.

----------


## Authentic

The Big Bang is only a theory...

----------

12icer (04-12-2022),Big Bird (04-13-2022),Conservative Libertarian (04-14-2022),Knightkore (04-12-2022),Mr. Claws (04-14-2022),Swedgin (04-14-2022)

----------


## Canadianeye

> {I'm sorry I thought THIS was the big bang.....}


Fighting...the urge...to click...that...video.

----------

12icer (04-12-2022),Big Bird (04-13-2022),Knightkore (04-12-2022)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> The Big Bang is only a theory...



Its the only one we got......  unless you're an steady state idiot, which was simply does not fit the known laws of physics anymore

----------

MisterVeritis (04-12-2022)

----------


## Oceander

> This seems to be accepted by a good many lay people.
> 
> That a mass of nothing managed an explosion labeled the big bang.
> 
> Was there really a big bang?  What happened to it takes sound to be heard?  I mean a bang is noise in air. But in a vacuum?
> 
> Take the moon. And you carry dynamite with you. And there you light a fuse and the dynamite looks like it exploded. But what would explode?
> 
> An explosion happens in air. The Moon has no air. Ergo no explosion nor big bang.
> ...


Wrong, on many points.

To go for the picayune:  dynamite doesn't require the presence of air - oxygen specifically - to detonate.  In fact, it will detonate in a vacuum, all on its own, provided that the appropriate shock is applied.

----------

12icer (04-12-2022)

----------


## Robert

> The Big Bang is only a theory...





> A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses.
> 
> In a previous blog post, I talked about the definition of “fact” in a scientific context, and discussed how facts differ from hypotheses and theories. The latter two terms also are well worth looking at in more detail because they are used differently by scientists and the general public, which can cause confusion when scientists talk about their work.




https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/wha...d%20hypotheses.

----------


## Knightkore

> Its the only one we got......  unless you're an steady state idiot, which was simply does not fit the known laws of physics anymore


Creation Theory or Intelligent Design

----------


## OneDumbBlonde

> Fighting...the urge...to click...that...video.


Just Do It.

I couldn't not.   :Laugh:

----------

12icer (04-12-2022),Big Bird (04-13-2022),Canadianeye (04-12-2022),Knightkore (04-12-2022)

----------


## Robert

> Wrong, on many points.
> 
> To go for the picayune:  dynamite doesn't require the presence of air - oxygen specifically - to detonate.  In fact, it will detonate in a vacuum, all on its own, provided that the appropriate shock is applied.


You did not understand what I was saying on this topic about dynamite and it is totally my fault.
The event called the explosion clearly did happen.
But there was no noise.

That and also with no air, the event called the explosion would not push air or any gas. Ergo how could any astronaut tell?

He would see the stick suddenly vanish. 

I suspect he could be inches from it and feel nothing at all.

----------


## Knightkore

> Fighting...the urge...to click...that...video.


May I suggest minute 5:04.  Trust me THAT clip will have you.....well.....enjoy.   :Sofa:

----------

OneDumbBlonde (04-12-2022)

----------


## Knightkore

> Just Do It.
> 
> I couldn't not.



Okay for you check out 14 seconds in.  I kid you not, I think she needs two bras.  Trust me, you'll get what I mean.

----------

OneDumbBlonde (04-12-2022)

----------


## Authentic

> You did not understand what I was saying on this topic about dynamite and it is totally my fault.
> The event called the explosion clearly did happen.
> But there was no noise.
> 
> That and also with no air, the event called the explosion would not push air or any gas. Ergo how could any astronaut tell?
> 
> He would see the stick suddenly vanish. 
> 
> I suspect he could be inches from it and feel nothing at all.


UKSp just got done telling you that there was no explosion, rather that the Calabi-Yau manifold partially decompactified because of a fluctuation of the 2-Brane, causing an eruption of energy.

----------


## OneDumbBlonde

> Okay for you check out 14 seconds in.  I kid you not, I think she needs two bras.  Trust me, you'll get what I mean.


I realized that I needed my eyes checked because of that clip!!   :Wtf20:

----------

Knightkore (04-12-2022)

----------


## Knightkore

> UKSp just got done telling you that there was no explosion, rather that the Calabi-Yau manifold partially decompactified because of a fluctuation of the 2-Brane, causing an eruption of energy.


Don't say that stuff to Joe Biden.  He'll think you're coming on to him.  With all the fuctuation & erection of energy &.....um.....I misread those words.....nevermind..... :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

Authentic (04-12-2022)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Creation Theory or Intelligent Design



nah they arent theory, they are fairy tales  that use imaginary friends, and they arent  allowed in this forum.

----------


## Common

FAIR WARNING  UKsmartypants STOP the personal insults 


Further action may be taken if it continues

----------

Big Bird (04-13-2022)

----------


## Knightkore

> nah they arent theory, they are fairy tales  that use imaginary friends, and they arent  allowed in this forum.


https://reasons.org/explore/publicat...-from-fictions


People in the first group understand that the big bang denies the notion of an uncreated or self-existent universe. The big bang theory, based on the accumulated data of centuries, points to a supernatural beginning and a purposeful (hence personal), transcendent (beyond the boundaries of space, time, matter, and energy) Beginner. Those who reject the reality of God or the knowability of God would, of course, find such an idea repugnant, an affront to their philosophical worldview. Similarly, it would offend those who want to spell _universe_ with a capital _U_, who have been trained to view the universe itself as ultimate reality and as the totality of all that is real. Again, their response is religious.

----------


## Robert

> UKSp just got done telling you that there was no explosion, rather that the Calabi-Yau manifold partially decompactified because of a fluctuation of the 2-Brane, causing an eruption of energy.


Without all the fancy talk, that is what I said in my OP.

No molecules of a gas, ergo no explosion.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Without all the fancy talk, that is what I said in my OP.
> 
> No molecules of a gas, ergo no explosion.



I repeat, it wasnt an explosion, it was a decompactification,and there was no such thing as matter ie gas, for another 300,000 years. Your grasp of cosmology and physics  is grossly inadequate, but im not going to teach you.

----------


## Robert

> I repeat, it wasnt an explosion, it was a decompactification,and there was no such thing as matter ie gas, for another 300,000 years. Your grasp of cosmology and physics  is grossly inadequate, but im not going to teach you.


Shut up.

----------


## Robert

> I repeat, it wasnt an explosion, it was a decompactification,and there was no such thing as matter ie gas, for another 300,000 years. Your grasp of cosmology and physics  is grossly inadequate, but im not going to teach you.


Not according to science.




> Astronomers have found two clouds of gas that formed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang that created our universe, a new study reveals.
> 
> This discovery is the first time these gas clouds have been detected and adds more support to what is already the most widely accepted theory of how our universe came to be, astronomers said.


https://www.space.com/13570-big-bang...rdial-gas.html

----------


## Dan40

Another thing liberal trolls do is take up space in a forum just to disrupt.

----------

BooBoo (04-12-2022)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Not according to science.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.space.com/13570-big-bang...rdial-gas.html



nope, faulty reporting by somone with the same level of knowledge you have. Try using credible sources  by scientists, not junior reporters.  That article is more than 10 years old, and ten years ago we thought the universe was 15 billion years old, the knowledge has moved on by vast amounts since then. 
" _It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms_"

* It called the Epoch of the Last Scattering*  Matter couldnt form before this because the temperature of the Universe was 3000K<, and electrons were immediately re-emitted from orbital shells, preventing atoms from existing. Only when the Universe had cooled to less than 3000 k  could ionised nucleus capture and keep electrons . This did not occur until the Universe was about 380,000 years old.  what existed before that was called the Quark-Gluon Plasma, which was what it says on the tin, a type of plasma, but not matter as you are trying to imply - there were no atoms.  This QGP  existed from about 10-35  secs  to 380,000 years  after the Big Bang, ie from about 200 billion k to 3000k. The process is called Recombination. The point id that the nucleus could form, but could not form atoms, as the electrons were too energetic to capture. 


The early universe | CERN

----------

Authentic (04-12-2022),Call_me_Ishmael (04-12-2022),MisterVeritis (04-12-2022)

----------


## Authentic

> Not according to science.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.space.com/13570-big-bang...rdial-gas.html


Did you miss the part about the team needing to determine of the things they claimed to have found are near a galaxy in order to confirm their hypothesis?

----------

UKSmartypants (04-12-2022)

----------


## Authentic

And, it has been 11 years, so maybe they have done it and you would be better served by finding a more recent story.

----------


## BooBoo

Just what in the Heck did @Quark have to do with all of that... No Wonder the Lobes are Large..!!!  :Thinking:

----------

Authentic (04-12-2022)

----------


## BooBoo



----------

12icer (04-12-2022)

----------


## Quark

> Just what in the Heck did @Quark have to do with all of that... No Wonder the Lobes are Large..!!!


I'm innocent @BooBoo. My farts are explosive but not that explosive!  :Sofa:  :Smiley20:

----------

12icer (04-12-2022),BooBoo (04-12-2022)

----------


## Robert

> Did you miss the part about the team needing to determine of the things they claimed to have found are near a galaxy in order to confirm their hypothesis?


Did you miss were they said gas formed in a few minutes?

----------


## Authentic

> Did you miss were they said gas formed in a few minutes?


They didn't say that definitively.

 That is their hypothesis. 

They have discovered gas clouds. 

The question is _when_ they were formed.

----------

Sunsettommy (04-13-2022)

----------


## Authentic

The writer is inconsistent. First she says the gas clouds formed in the first few minutes after the BB and later that the observations date to 2 billion years after the BB.

Space.com is a popular science site.

The writer is a journalist with a science beat, not a scientist.

----------


## Authentic

The writer covers _climate change_.

That in itself should call into question her credentials.

----------


## Robert

> They didn't say that definitively.
> 
>  That is their hypothesis. 
> 
> They have discovered gas clouds. 
> 
> The question is _when_ they were formed.


Yes and when did they report gas clouds formed?

----------


## Authentic

> Yes and when did they report gas clouds formed?


They didn't.

As of the date of the article (2011) they were preparing to test their hypothesis.

However, their observations then were from 2 billion years after the BB.

----------


## Authentic

I have since read more recent articles on this study (in other words, the team tested their hypothesis).

See if you can find them.

----------


## Robert

Authentic, I posted this one more time for you to read.

Astronomers have found* two clouds of gas that formed in the** first few minutes** after the Big Bang* that created our universe, a new study reveals.

This discovery is the first time these gas clouds have been detected and adds more support to what is already the most widely accepted theory of how our universe came to be, astronomers said.

----------


## Authentic

> Authentic, I posted this one more time for you to read.
> 
> Astronomers have found* two clouds of gas that formed in the** first few minutes** after the Big Bang* that created our universe, a new study reveals.
> 
> This discovery is the first time these gas clouds have been detected and adds more support to what is already the most widely accepted theory of how our universe came to be, astronomers said.


From a journalist on a popular science website, not a scientist.

Listen to UKSp instead of telling him to shut up.

He is a scientist.

----------

UKSmartypants (04-13-2022)

----------


## 12icer

The "big bang" has about one billionth the chance of being feasible as Creationism. 
Science based on a "find this" theory is not science it is fabrication of a fantasy. 
Physics is an EXACT COMPLETE, and actual science. 
It is not a "prove this" science 
Every piece of a physics quest is provable by repetition IE with different actual portions in some cases. 
The science of "the big bang" is as infantile and pompous as a child's tantrum. 
"Because I said so" is the actual evidence presented at all times. 
The graphs the presentations and the tomes do not prove anything other than the fact some men think they are the greatest thing to ever exist in the universe and everything owes its continued existence to the whims and ideas of man.
I have never seen ANY proof of spontaneous "CREATION" with no CREATOR. 
Just as a painting cannot paint itself.
Although some idiots also think mud getting splashed on a canvas is art. HEHEHEHEHEH

If you somehow find a witness to the spontaneous creation of a lifeform and its subsequent metamorphic transformation into a beautiful woman, Let me know and I will follow the science to see if it can be done again!!!

----------

BooBoo (04-12-2022),Robert (04-12-2022)

----------


## Robert

> From a journalist on a popular science website, not a scientist.
> 
> Listen to UKSp instead of telling him to shut up.
> 
> He is a scientist.


You are calling her a liar?  She reports on Science. You know, by actual Scientists.

----------


## Jen

God is powerful enough to create a big bang out of nothing.

When he said "let there be light".............was there a bang?

Don't know.

Nobody was there to hear it but I"m betting that if God wanted a bang, there was one.

----------

12icer (04-12-2022),BooBoo (04-13-2022)

----------


## 12icer

I can't say if there was a bang, but I don't think GOD needed a Bang, man is the one who needs one to define an instant of CREATION. I think God can do as Merlin did and just make things appear but without trickery. After all he made the Rain of the Floods, He parted the water, he did many things man tries to attribute to natural phenomena, yet they cannot reproduce them or exhibit evidence of another such event in all of their billion's of years of history uninscribed yet known somehow by instinct I guess.

----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022)

----------


## Authentic

> You are calling her a liar?  She reports on Science. You know, by actual Scientists.


Yes. She is a _reporter_.

You trust the media?

----------


## Trinnity

> That *a mass of nothing* managed an explosion labeled the big bang.


Physics is not your forte.

----------

Authentic (04-13-2022),MisterVeritis (04-13-2022)

----------


## Trinnity

> The event called the explosion clearly did happen.
> But there was no noise.


Sir, you don't seem to know the basics of how sound works. 




> That and also with no air, the event called the explosion would not push air or any gas. Ergo how could any astronaut tell?


 :Facepalm:

----------

Authentic (04-13-2022),BooBoo (04-13-2022)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> This seems to be accepted by a good many lay people.
> 
> That a mass of nothing managed an explosion labeled the big bang.
> 
> Was there really a big bang?  What happened to it takes sound to be heard?  I mean a bang is noise in air. But in a vacuum?
> 
> Take the moon. And you carry dynamite with you. And there you light a fuse and the dynamite looks like it exploded. But what would explode?
> 
> An explosion happens in air. The Moon has no air. Ergo no explosion nor big bang.
> ...



Another example of your gargantuan ignorance of science.

Mass is imparted by  a particle , the Higgs Boson. which did not exist until symmetry breaking took place at about   10-12 seconds and the Higgs mechanism was able to oeprate. However, ther were still no particles with mass because of the temperature  of the Universe at that point.


Mass  does not exist outside the universe, all there is is energy. Mass is a nonsense concept in relation to the multiverse, and the fact you cant even grasp this is why most of your posts are ignorant rubbish.  You are way out your depth here, and your stabs in the dark at this subject  really are embarrasing.  Your obsession with sound', a concept that means nothing outside the atmosphere of a planet, is banal.


Also you keep wittering on about 'sound' as if its some sort of special thing., Sound is merely a pressure wave travelling through  a medium. Its 'sound' because you have a sensor designed to register air pressure and convert it into an analogue electrical signal, its called your ear. What do you think a sonic boom is? or Thunder? Of the rumble of an earthquake/ its all just pressure waves.  There could be no such pressure wave , because it would lead the expansion until the inflationary phase started and ended. At that point it would be about four inches behind the expanding front, so if you wanted to hear it, thats where you needed to be, between the expansion front and any pressure wave. Except now, of course, its about 96 B light years away, and the frequency will have drop to  a wavelength of about 45 billion light years

----------


## CWF

If the Creator is imaginary due to being made up in the minds of some people, then by parity of reason so too is this contraption called a Calabi-Yau Manifold which belched, or puked, or squeezed out the stuff that began everything, including us, people.  Marvelous complicated people among other marvelous complicated beings, life, and life sustaining plants, water, and the laws of physics that keep it functioning, all this and more is the result of.....what, a nothing with a tummy ache?

Talk about fairy tales.  The big bang stems from cosmologists attempting to explain to themselves what to do with the 'red shift in light' that indicates that the universe is expanding, and if it is then it must be expanding from something, and that something they named a singularity, once thought to be no larger than a dime, and this little whatever decided on its own, as if it could make decisions, to blow up, and that is what caused all the stuff, both quantum and bigger than Dallas to emerge.

Please keep in mind that the science forum is for only fairy tales approved by science.  The G word is not one of them.  It causes upset tummies.

Now, if anyone is a 'troll' then understand this fact. And you cannot change or alter it.  Biden is a fraud. A belligerent arrogant phony whose idiotic pretense of being a legitimate president concerned with the well being and health of the United States of America is nothing but a sick comedy that only sick people support.

Personally, I like science. Real science.  I like religion too.  Real religion.  In short, I like the truth.      I will admit that as a kid I loved Heckel and Jeckel  and Popeye and Pals. I like the Medea movies too.  But all that is real comedy.

----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022),Knightkore (04-13-2022),Robert (04-13-2022)

----------


## Trinnity

I'd like to d/c the religion topic altogether but I'd get crucified.

----------

12icer (04-13-2022),BooBoo (04-13-2022),Knightkore (04-13-2022),MisterVeritis (04-13-2022)

----------


## BooBoo

> I'd like to d/c the religion topic altogether but I'd get crucified.


It is too Close to Easter to do that...!!!  :Bunny:

----------

12icer (04-13-2022)

----------


## CWF

D/C the topic of religion?  No need to be so harsh.

Just re-name it. Feel good religion. That would do. Then ban people like me.  From both the feel good science as well.

Another suggestion.  Have a forum for Trolls.  Maybe a catch all forum could be called the Bullshit Bar.

Maybe I should just shut the hell up.  I think I will.

----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022)

----------


## Knightkore

> I'd like to d/c the religion topic altogether but I'd get crucified.


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022)

----------


## Knightkore



----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022)

----------


## Knightkore



----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> I'd like to d/c the religion topic altogether but I'd get crucified.



Robert has managed to slip another God Thread into the Science Forum, im getting sick of this.

It was bad enough when you-know-who used to do it, it would create gigantic incendiary viscious flame wars that were no good for the forum. We agreed, no god in the Science forum, no science in Humanities,

This is the second time robert has managed to turn a science thread into a god thread. 

Please  move this to Humanities, and please can we reiterate the rule of no god in the science forum please.?

----------


## Knightkore

> Robert has managed to slip another God Thread into the Science Forum, im getting sick of this.
> 
> It was bad enough when you-know-who used to do it, it would create gigantic incendiary viscious flame wars that were no good for the forum. We agreed, no god in the Science forum, no science in Humanities,
> 
> This is the second time robert has managed to turn a science thread into a god thread. 
> 
> Please  move this to Humanities, and please can we reiterate the rule of no god in the science forum please.?


GOD CREATED SCIENCE.  The fact that you do not acknowledge this is irrelevant.  It's like how Disney doesn't acknowledge there are only two genders.  The fact they want to dismiss science & fact & yes the Creator concerning gender irrelevant.  You can believe anything you wish.  Reality however, actual settled reality laughs at any attempt & make up reality.

As someone who is methodically & scientifically minded you SHOULD account for EVERY possible factor whether you have biases or not.  And those biases usually are based on FEELINGS not on facts or reality.

----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022)

----------


## Knightkore

Fascinatingly UKSmarty seems to be against these videos.   :Thinking:

----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022)

----------


## Knightkore



----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022)

----------


## Knightkore

I think UKSmarty bristles at the fact that a Creationist, a world renowned Astrophysicist, actually agrees with the Big Bang concept.  Just the fact that Hugh Ross includes God in the mix & the Bible makes UKSmarty all ooky.  Which tells you something.  As with the lockdowns & masks & shots it was never about health.....the Big Bang concept when he puts it forth is all about trying to discredit Christians & the Bible it really isn't about science.  It is why he wants it separated.

That's okay.  I understand.  If I didn't have an argument to stand on & was coming from an emotional bias against something I wouldn't want to confront that which is pissing me off to no end either.  It's why the governments arrested those telling the truth of the plandemic.

If it makes UKSmarty FEEL better.....ya know.....meh nevermind.  Your triggers are not my problem.

----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022)

----------


## Robert

> Sir, you don't seem to know the basics of how sound works.


I expected some who do not understand sound to make such claims.




> The Sun is the biggest explosion any of us can imagine, Hadfield 
> 
> . Its a huge continuous thermonuclear explosions every atom bomb weve ever built way more than that continuously exploding. It would be the loudest thing imaginable.
> Despite the violent nature of the Suns constant explosions, Hadfield noted that even astronauts in space couldnt hear them simply due to the vast emptiness and vacuum of space. In other words, the sound of the explosions produced by the Sun cant travel across space.


Astronaut Clarifies If Loud Explosions Can Be Heard In Space

----------

Knightkore (04-13-2022),Sunsettommy (04-13-2022)

----------


## Robert

> Physics is not your forte.


You think the teachers that taught me physics were wrong to give me straight A grades?

----------


## 12icer

We have a lot of things floating in this thread Creation, vs Primordial Soup Genesis, Metamorphosis and Evolution. 
Sound as an energy wave compared to sound heard by the movement of an airborne compressive transmittal to the receptor of a life form as in the Tree falling in the forest. 
Chemical and biological structure and the actual force of life and soul and its impartment into a mixture or compound of elements AND the entity's ability to reproduce itself through some process and continue its progressive Evolution.

Rather complicated multiple subjective thesis we have here. 

Which would you call the core subject of the thread?

----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022)

----------


## Knightkore

> You think the teachers that taught me physics were wrong to give me straight A grades?


Straight?  Why not Gay A grades?  Seems your teachers were homophobic.   :Smiley ROFLMAO:   Sorry, that was too tempting to not try.

----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022)

----------


## CWF

> Another entirely fallacious post from an idiot that knows nothing about science.  The Phrase "Big bang" is a populist media buzzphrase  not a scientific description coined by Fred Hoyle during a BBC radio program.  It wasnt even an explosion, it was an eruption of energy as 4 of the 11 dimensions of our founding  Calabi Yau manifold decompactified, which was caused by  a random quantum fluctuation on the particular 2-Brane concerned
> 
> I would now normally write a detailed  explanation of what this all means, but for you I cant be arsed. Go and read some proper physics, maths and cosmology books.


I can only speak for myself but you, kind sir, open your mouth by name calling.

  I take you at your word that you are some kind of a scientist. I am not doubting that you are. But, since you are I would appreciate your answer to a few simple, uncomplicated questions .

  Has atheistic cosmology replaced common sense?  Is it intellectually satisfying?
What scientific facts are there to support it?  What unarguable evidence is available for it?
And finally, why is the notion of God so repugnant to you?

----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022),Knightkore (04-13-2022),Robert (04-13-2022),Sunsettommy (04-13-2022),Swedgin (04-14-2022)

----------


## Knightkore

Wow.  Glenn Beck right now on his program is talking about science vs God & science & God right now.

How amazing is that.  Live on BlazeTV Glenn Beck is discussing the science/God issue right now that we're discussing now.  

God finds a way.

----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022)

----------


## Robert

These constant attacks against me by the SA in England has to cease.

There is nothing at all religious in any of my posts. Others bring it up, but I never did.

----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022),Knightkore (04-13-2022)

----------


## Robert

> Straight?  Why not Gay A grades?  Seems your teachers were homophobic.    Sorry, that was too tempting to not try.


Though I have added a great deal to my education in Physics, those teachers were grading me far earlier than this crappy noise one hears today. Teachers were then not one bit afraid to* not* discuss homosexuals in science courses. 
Who started the rumor that England's own SmartyPants is a scientist?

----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022),Knightkore (04-13-2022)

----------


## Knightkore

> Though I have added a great deal to my education in Physics, those teachers were grading me far earlier than this crappy noise one hears today. Teachers were then not one bit afraid to* not* discuss homosexuals in science courses. 
> Who started the rumor that England's own SmartyPants is a scientist?


Not sure.  I'm guessing the rumor is just that.....a rumor?

----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

I'm thinking someone got a *big bang* to their head as a child.

But I'm trying to go easy. That could be me in 20 years ... if I lived that long. Who knows what nonsense I'd be spouting in my 80s!

----------

Authentic (04-13-2022)

----------


## Authentic

> It is too Close to Easter to do that...!!!


Meaning that it would get ressurected?

----------


## Authentic

> You think the teachers that taught me physics were wrong to give me straight A grades?


You don't come across as a physicist...

----------


## Authentic

> Who started the rumor that England's own SmartyPants is a scientist?


I suppose me. But if he is _not_ a scientist then I am the Queen of England.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> I suppose me. But if he is _not_ a scientist then I am the Queen of England.


You did a hell of a job with your sons  :Rolls Eyes:

----------

Authentic (04-13-2022),OneDumbBlonde (04-13-2022)

----------


## Dan40

> I'm thinking someone got a *big bang* to their head as a child.
> 
> But I'm trying to go easy. That could be me in 20 years ... if I lived that long. Who knows what nonsense I'd be spouting in my 80s!


Hey!

----------


## Robert

> You don't come across as a physicist...


 I am not a Physicist. But Physics happens to be one of my first loves in Math and Science.
SmartyPants gets pissed at my comments then he repeats my claims pretending they are his claims.
Weird isn't it.

I said there is nothing to transmit sound in space and after he called me a liar, he admits there is nothing to transmit sound in space.

----------


## Trinnity

> Have a forum for Trolls.  Maybe a catch all forum could be called the Bullshit Bar.


We do. It's "I hate that forum" aka The Mosh Pit. Trolling and troll threads go there. 




> I expected some who do not understand sound to make such claims.


You inferred there's sound in space. Your knowledge of physics is grade school level. IDK when you learned, but either it was in the 1950s or you're making it up as you go along and totally trolling for fun. But you know almost nothing about physics, astrophysics,   quantum theory/mechanics, gravity, or dark energy/matter.

You also said the singularity contained "nothing". 






> I am not a Physicist. But Physics happens to be one of my first loves in Math and Science.
> SmartyPants gets pissed at my comments then he repeats my claims pretending they are his claims. Weird isn't it. I said there is nothing to transmit sound in space and after he called me a liar, he admits there is nothing to transmit sound in space.


You're trolling and disrupting the thread.

Robert didn't start the talk of God,  but  3 or more people are taking the thread somewhat off topic. There's absolutely no reason for God to be a part of this discussion.


  FAIR WARNING I'm reminding y'all to keep the religious references out of this discussion. Stay on topic.

----------

Knightkore (04-14-2022)

----------


## Robert

> You inferred there's sound in space. Your knowledge of physics is grade school level. IDK when you learned, but either it was in the 1950s or you're making it up as you go along and totally trolling for fun. But you know almost nothing about physics, astrophysics, quantum theory/mechanics, gravity, or dark energy/matter.
> 
> You also said the singularity contained "nothing".





> You're trolling and disrupting the thread.
> 
> Robert didn't start the talk of God, but 3 or more people are taking the thread somewhat off topic. There's absolutely no reason for God to be a part of this discussion.


There is Sound where a medium to carry sound exists. Earth is in space and has a medium to carry sound.
I have been lied about in this topic. Hopefully the lies cease.
This topic was created by me and believe this, I want it to stay on topic.
I studied physics both in high school and also in College. That and I am known to post a number of threads on Physics that others comment on.
Why is your remarks naming only me?




> But you know almost nothing about physics, astrophysics, quantum theory/mechanics, gravity, or dark energy/matter.


I see no evidence you know much about those topics. I am least informed on Quantum Theory but a good many scientists question Gravity and Dark energy and matter. I have put forth almost zero on those  topics. 

The thing called singularity is an unproven theory.

There are a good number of posters posting here who refuse to stay on topic but I am not among them.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Who started the rumor that England's own SmartyPants is a scientist?



I have a Second Class Honours Degree in Computing Science with an Expert Systems Thesis (nowadays called AI or machine learning) from UMIST (Manchester Institute of Science and Technology)  obtained  in 1980.............and ive written dozens of threads on this forum on physics, astronomy, cosmology, chemistry and maths on here.  You really do have some brass neck.

----------

Authentic (04-13-2022)

----------


## Sunsettommy

> Another entirely fallacious post from an idiot that knows nothing about science.  The Phrase "Big bang" is a populist media buzzphrase  not a scientific description coined by Fred Hoyle during a BBC radio program.  It wasnt even an explosion, it was an eruption of energy as 4 of the 11 dimensions of our founding  Calabi Yau manifold decompactified, which was caused by  a random quantum fluctuation on the particular 2-Brane concerned
> 
> I would now normally write a detailed  explanation of what this all means, but for you I cant be arsed. Go and read some proper physics, maths and cosmology books.


How long ago was this alleged event happened?

----------


## Sunsettommy

> I repeat, it wasnt an explosion, it was a decompactification,and there was no such thing as matter ie gas, for another 300,000 years. Your grasp of cosmology and physics  is grossly inadequate, but im not going to teach you.


Where is the evidence to support this?

----------

CWF (04-14-2022)

----------


## Dan40

Staying on topic of this thread.  Liberal trolls routinely dispute facts and substitute opinions and conjured gobblegook.

----------


## Sunsettommy

> nope, faulty reporting by somone with the same level of knowledge you have. Try using credible sources  by scientists, not junior reporters.  That article is more than 10 years old, and ten years ago we thought the universe was 15 billion years old, the knowledge has moved on by vast amounts since then. 
> " _It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms_"
> 
> * It called the Epoch of the Last Scattering*  Matter couldnt form before this because the temperature of the Universe was 3000K<, and electrons were immediately re-emitted from orbital shells, preventing atoms from existing. Only when the Universe had cooled to less than 3000 k  could ionised nucleus capture and keep electrons . This did not occur until the Universe was about 380,000 years old.  what existed before that was called the Quark-Gluon Plasma, which was what it says on the tin, a type of plasma, but not matter as you are trying to imply - there were no atoms.  This QGP  existed from about 10-35  secs  to 380,000 years  after the Big Bang, ie from about 200 billion k to 3000k. The process is called Recombination. The point id that the nucleus could form, but could not form atoms, as the electrons were too energetic to capture. 
> 
> 
> The early universe | CERN


Where is the evidence to back all this and how can they be sure it was 380,000 years when this allegedly happened over 10 billion years ago?

" _It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms_"

----------

CWF (04-14-2022)

----------


## Sunsettommy

" _It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms"

_How do they know when this allegedly happened over 10 billion years ago?

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Where is the evidence to support this?



In the dozens of physics books all round the planet, and countless research papers ove rthe last 30 years, which can hardly be summarised here. Im not going even go to attempt to waste a couple of hours writing an essay on the Big Bang, Go and start googling and find out for yourself. I dont educate skeptics. Its not my fault you are poorly read.

Its the main accepted theory, as you well know.

----------

MisterVeritis (04-13-2022)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> " _It took 380,000 years for electrons to be trapped in orbits around nuclei, forming the first atoms"
> 
> _How do they know when this allegedly happened over 10 billion years ago?



because you can extrapolate backwards  from the current position using the known laws of physic.  If you have no idea how that works then go and read some books on cosmology. You are challenging the entire physics community .


Im not answering any more banal questions, if you dont believe then go and educate yourself. You're just a troll playing stupid for the sake of creating an argument.  This is not a genuine thread, what we have here is a bunch of god boys trying to troll this forum.


If i was a mod I'd have locked this troll thread several pages ago.  And im on the edge of blocking you, because you are trolling and disrespecting this forum.  This is the Science Forum, and the validity of the Big Bang theory is not up for debate. If you want to do that take it to Humanities forum

----------


## BooBoo

From Wiki :



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

----------


## BooBoo



----------

UKSmartypants (04-13-2022)

----------


## BooBoo

*What Is the Big Bang?* *The Short Answer:*
 		 			The big bang is how astronomers explain the way the universe began.  It is the idea that the universe began as just a single point, then  expanded and stretched to grow as large as it is right now—and it is  still stretching! 		

What Is the Big Bang? | NASA Space Place â NASA Science for Kids

----------


## BooBoo

*How Did the Big Bang Happen?*Virtually  all astronomers and cosmologists agree the universe began with a “big  bang” — a tremendously powerful genesis of space-time that sent matter  and energy reeling outward.

             By              David J. Eicher  |               Published: Monday, July 1, 2019



https://astronomy.com/magazine/great...ig-bang-happen

----------

UKSmartypants (04-13-2022)

----------


## BooBoo

Need More...?!?

Okay, Here is Another One... Choose Wisely :

"There’s no exact spot that the Big Bang happened. In fact, the Big Bang  happened everywhere in the Universe. The problem generally comes from  the term “Big Bang”. It brings to mind explosions, detonations, balloons  being popped, and everything being blown out to chickenbasket hades.  It’s too bad for us regular folk, this isn’t a good descriptive term for  what the Big Bang was."




Where Did the Big Bang Happen? - Universe Today

----------

Authentic (04-13-2022)

----------


## UKSmartypants

thanks, I cant be arsed to deal with this.  This is a forum for those that want to know, not those that come here to troll.

----------

OneDumbBlonde (04-13-2022)

----------


## BooBoo

One asked for Proof, BooBoo supplied Some Answers with "Choose Wisely"... That Choice is Now Theirs..!!!

----------

CWF (04-14-2022)

----------


## Sunsettommy

> In the dozens of physics books all round the planet, and countless research papers ove rthe last 30 years, which can hardly be summarised here. Im not going even go to attempt to waste a couple of hours writing an essay on the Big Bang, Go and start googling and find out for yourself. I dont educate skeptics. Its not my fault you are poorly read.
> 
> Its the main accepted theory, as you well know.


LOL

Your assumptions about me isn't smart of you and the answer doesn't require a couple hours to make an answer. 

Deductive modeling doesn't work which is why you are being arrogant in your replies which to me indicate you lack confidence in it.

----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022),CWF (04-14-2022)

----------


## Sunsettommy

> because you can extrapolate backwards  from the current position using the known laws of physic.  If you have no idea how that works then go and read some books on cosmology. You are challenging the entire physics community .
> 
> 
> Im not answering any more banal questions, if you dont believe then go and educate yourself. You're just a troll playing stupid for the sake of creating an argument.  This is not a genuine thread, what we have here is a bunch of god boys trying to troll this forum.
> 
> 
> If i was a mod I'd have locked this troll thread several pages ago.  And im on the edge of blocking you, because you are trolling and disrespecting this forum.  This is the Science Forum, and the validity of the Big Bang theory is not up for debate. If you want to do that take it to Humanities forum


Ha ha you are so angry over a simple question how come?

You are angrily calling me a troll because you are being put on the spot unable to answer the simple questions put to you which you didn't have to answer at all or just make a simple answer but YOU chose to be arrogant and accusatory against me instead with a bunch of assumptions behind it.

Your answer shows it is based on extrapolation back in time a classic *deductive modeling* concept which is why so many don't accept it because it isn't a valid way to verify something.

You can relax now.

----------

12icer (04-13-2022),BooBoo (04-13-2022),CWF (04-14-2022)

----------


## Sunsettommy

> thanks, I cant be arsed to deal with this.  This is a forum for those that want to know, not those that come here to troll.


From the forum rules page:

*"Common sense and decency apply, so please be civil and hold a customary level of decorum in your interactions here."


*Being called a troll over my asking simple short questions that is on topic is bad faith posting on your part since I didn't troll or be off topic at all just asked simple questions.

I have known what the Big Bang is since the 1970's read books from Robert Jastrow to Stephen Hawkins on various topics.

Your arrogance in your replies isn't helping you here you could have ignored it or made a simple reply to a simple question which should be easy for you as a scientist.

----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022),CWF (04-14-2022),Knightkore (04-14-2022)

----------


## Oceander

> LOL
> 
> Your assumptions about me isn't smart of you and the answer doesn't require a couple hours to make an answer. 
> 
> Deductive modeling doesn't work which is why you are being arrogant in your replies which to me indicate you lack confidence in it.


That’s quite a strong statement.  Prove it.

----------

12icer (04-13-2022),BooBoo (04-13-2022)

----------


## Sunsettommy

It was a Belgian Priest Robert Lemaitre who first developed the concept of the "big bang" back in 1931 which I have known about since the 1980's.

LINK

----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022)

----------


## Sunsettommy

> That’s quite a strong statement.  Prove it.


He has ducked answering a simple question but it appears you don't know the answer either,

Here is the simple answer:

Hubble’s discovery in the 1920s of a relationship between a galaxy’s distance from Earth and its speed


The discovery in the 1960s of cosmic microwave background radiation.

LINK 

I have known this for over 40 years now.

----------

BooBoo (04-13-2022),CWF (04-14-2022)

----------


## Authentic

> It was a Begian Priest Robert Lemaitre who first developed the concept of the "big bang" back in 1931 which I have known about since the 1980's.
> 
> LINK


Where is Begia? Andromeda Galaxy?

----------


## Trinnity

> I see no evidence you know much about those topics.


 I never claimed to. 

But you wrote things that are plain dumb.

----------

Authentic (04-13-2022),Conservative Libertarian (04-14-2022),S-N-A-F-U (04-14-2022)

----------


## 12icer

Any Deductive modeling depends on the Known data that is introduced into the Model. since there is VERY little actual verifiable data to support the BIG, BANG and there will never be enough to verifiably prove the events. I will continue to think there are other forces instead of primordial soup and lightning Involved. HEHEHEH. 

Deductive modeling IS a very useful tool used for the right timeline-event cohesive tracking within KNOWN parameters. 
It is not for an unknown, uncontrolled, limitless fantasy theory.

----------

BooBoo (04-14-2022),CWF (04-14-2022),Sunsettommy (04-14-2022)

----------


## S-N-A-F-U

*Questions the Big Bang Does Not Answer
*
A major challenge to the big bang has come from observers using the corrected optics of the Hubble Space Telescope to measure distances to other galaxies. The new data is giving the theorists fits!
*Astronomer Wendy Freedman and others* recently used the Hubble Space Telescope to measure the distance to a galaxy in the constellation of Virgo, and her measurement suggests that the universe is expanding faster, and therefore is younger, than previously thought. In fact, it *“implies a cosmic age as little as eight billion years,” reported Scientific American magazine just last June.* While eight billion years sounds like a very long time, it is only about half the currently estimated age of the universe. This creates a special problem, since, as the report goes on to note, “other data indicate that certain stars are at least 14 billion years old.” If Freedman’s numbers hold up, those elderly stars would turn out to be older than the big bang itself!

Still another problem for the big bang has come from steadily mounting evidence of “bubbles” in the universe that are 100 million light-years in size, with galaxies on the outside and voids inside.* Margaret Geller, John Huchra, and others at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics* have found what they call a great wall of galaxies some 500 million light-years in length across the northern sky. Another group of astronomers, who became known as the Seven Samurai, have found evidence of a different cosmic conglomeration, which they call the Great Attractor, located near the southern constellations of Hydra and Centaurus.* Astronomers Marc Postman and Tod Lauer* believe something even bigger must lie beyond the constellation Orion, causing hundreds of galaxies, including ours, to stream in that direction like rafts on a sort of “river in space.”

All this structure is baffling. Cosmologists say the blast from the big bang was extremely smooth and uniform, according to the background radiation it allegedly left behind. How could such a smooth start have led to such massive and complex structures? “The latest crop of walls and attractors intensifies the mystery of how so much structure could have formed within the 15-billion-year age of the universe,” admits *Scientific American*—a problem that only gets worse as Freedman and others roll back the estimated age of the cosmos still more.

*“We Are Missing Some Fundamental Element”
*
*Geller’s* three-dimensional maps of thousands of clumped, tangled, and bubbled galactic agglomerations have transformed the way scientists picture the universe. She does not pretend to understand what she sees. Gravity alone appears unable to account for her great wall. “I often feel we are missing some fundamental element in our attempts to understand this structure,” she admits.

Geller enlarged on her misgivings: “We clearly do not know how to make large structure in the context of the Big Bang.” Interpretations of cosmic structure on the basis of current mapping of the heavens are far from definitive—more like trying to picture the whole world from a survey of Rhode Island, U.S.A. Geller continued: “Someday we may find that we haven’t been putting the pieces together in the right way, and when we do, it will seem so obvious that we’ll wonder why we hadn’t thought of it much sooner.”

That leads to the biggest question of all: What is supposed to have caused the big bang itself? No less an authority than *Andrei Linde*, one of the originators of the very popular inflationary version of the big bang theory, frankly admits that the standard theory does not address this fundamental question. “The first, and main, problem is the very existence of the big bang,” he says. “One may wonder, What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? . . . Explaining this initial singularity—where and when it all began—still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology.”

*An article in Discover magazine recently concluded that “no reasonable cosmologist would claim that the Big Bang is the ultimate theory.”*  :Thinking:  

Lest we forget, theory's are conceptions of imperfect man.

*So much for the 'Big Noise'...*Let us now go outdoors and contemplate the beauty and the mystery of the starry skies above.  :Smiley20:

----------

CWF (04-14-2022),Mr. Claws (04-14-2022),Sunsettommy (04-14-2022)

----------


## JMWinPR

@UKSmartypants  "Go and read some proper physics, maths and *cosmology* books." 'zactly whut dew Estee Lauder haz to dew wid fiziks?

----------

BooBoo (04-14-2022),Mr. Claws (04-14-2022),Robert (04-14-2022)

----------


## JMWinPR

@UKSmartypants  "Go and read some proper physics, maths and *cosmology* books." 'zactly whut dew Estee Lauder haz to dew wid fiziks?

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Your arrogance in your replies isn't helping you here you could have ignored it or made a simple reply to a simple question which should be easy for you as a scientist.



scroll back in this forum, ive made dozens of detailed posts about the origin of the universe. Extremely technical, detailed posts.  I feel no compulsion to start repeating those post for a troll who has no real interest in the subject.

The issue is you havent come here to debate, you've come her to troll the forum and personally attack me. Im not inclined to engage you because  of the constant hostility you present to me time after time, and going back months. You are not someone i want to engage with, because your intent is malicious. You are now going to join  my ignore list. Dont waste your time trying to  engage with me ever again, for whatever reason or intent, which I have no doubt will be unpleasant.  No further acknowledgement by me of anything you post will ever occur again. Goodbye.

----------


## CWF

It is wonderful to see when the science forum produces some frank discussions concerning why cosmologists find it so necessary to speculate origin and age of everything when not even the scope and size of everything is known, let alone what it may contain.

The forum is ruined by arrogance and conceit of 'know it alls' berating and belittling anyone who might question or doubt their Modeling founded on scant and even nonexistence evidence supporting their grand theories.

Science does not know how the universe began. Science does not know why it is there. Since many of the leading physicists of the last century, and now this one, are atheist this serves to justify the conflict existing between scientific and religious beliefs. As one notable physicist (sorry, I cannot recall his name) put it, " We cannot allow a Divine foot  in the door" was being honest enough to openly state it.

Thanks to the real science folks posting on this forum. It is refreshing to read your thoughts.

----------

12icer (04-15-2022),BooBoo (04-14-2022),Sunsettommy (04-14-2022),Swedgin (04-14-2022)

----------


## Northern Rivers

There was no Big Bang...sort of. That's my call, anyway.  :Dontknow:

----------

12icer (04-15-2022),BooBoo (04-14-2022)

----------


## Swedgin

Robert,

Like you, I am a man of faith, so I believe in DIVINE guidance of the Universe.  

The only "facts" I have to support this are my own experience, and, my own philosophy.

Those are NOT "facts" that I can expect anyone else to accept.  (And, indeed, I fully expect some to "correct" me on my own experiences, and my own thoughts.  See...some of us know more about what all of of us think, than we do, as individuals.  In the past, I had thought that a uniquely LIBERAL thought process, but, I was mistaken.)

That said, I can still believe in the "Big Bang" theory.

For one, it, in no way interferes with my Faith and Belief in God, even though, it means that I can not take certain parts of the Bible, the Old Testament, in particular, as "literal." 

I simply believe all  is as God will it to be.  (Yes, I have a rather "simple" faith.  God does not need complexity in His relationships.  That seems to be a very human dynamic...)

But, I also treat the Big Bang THEORY as a...THEORY.  

No human was there to watch it, even though great minds have looked at a LOT of 'evidence,' (Some of it circumstantial...), and created this THEORY.

There are also all kinds of "holes" and questions abut the Universe that require OTHER THEORIES on top o The Big Bang.

How did the Universe expand faster than our current understanding of it's age would allow?

What exactly WAS the starting point?  What caused the Big Bang?  How did so much matter, and energy, come from a single point?

All that said, the Big Bang THEORY explains in a scientific manner much of what we observe.  Physicists have made experiments and observations testing certain aspects, and, almost without fail, they confirm the THEORY.

So, for me, I can believe in The Big Bang as a general theory of the scientific principles of how our Universe came to be.  And still have faith in the God I know.

----------

12icer (04-15-2022),BooBoo (04-14-2022),Conservative Libertarian (04-14-2022),Northern Rivers (04-14-2022)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

Richard Feynman .... Theoretical Physicist. (And teacher extraordinaire) 

This guy had a few words to say about "not knowingly things."
It seems to me to be a bit of an admonishment or maybe just a playful poke in the ribs to those who are driven to use the tools that they have to create an answer to _every_ question. The "tools" vary. Some have technical knowledge obtained from man's reason and man's science.  It's the preferred tool for them. Others have different tools that are less reliant on man's reason and science.  

I think Feynman's little talk in that video is applicable to _any_one with _any_ tool... regardless of Feynman's original intent... which I can only guess.

----------

12icer (04-15-2022),BooBoo (04-14-2022),Robert (04-14-2022),Sunsettommy (04-14-2022)

----------


## CWF

Based on his own words he is not afraid of not knowing anything at all.  He is fearless. Ignorant, but fearless.

Some inmates, I suppose, are comfortable in confinement. It is a form of real security.  This man doesn't know simply because he doesn't want to know.

I think it is wasteful to believe as he claims.  I would ask him if he knows if he exists. If yes, then he is a liar.  If no, foolishness is his search light.

I would not be a favored student in any class of his. What on earth could he "teach?"

----------

12icer (04-15-2022),BooBoo (04-14-2022),Robert (04-14-2022)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Based on his own words he is not afraid of not knowing anything at all.  He is fearless. Ignorant, but fearless.
> 
> Some inmates, I suppose, are comfortable in confinement. It is a form of real security.  This man doesn't know simply because he doesn't want to know.
> 
> I think it is wasteful to believe as he claims.  I would ask him if he knows if he exists. If yes, then he is a liar.  If no, foolishness is his search light.
> 
> I would not be a favored student in any class of his. What on earth could he "teach?"


Wow. One of the greatest teachers of physics.  You are clueless.

----------

BooBoo (04-14-2022),MisterVeritis (04-14-2022)

----------


## Knightkore

> thanks, I cant be arsed to deal with this.  This is a forum for those that want to know, not those that come here to troll.


There is ONE troll here.  You.  So by your standard you have disqualified yourself.

----------

12icer (04-15-2022),BooBoo (04-14-2022)

----------


## Knightkore

> We do. It's "I hate that forum" aka The Mosh Pit. Trolling and troll threads go there. 
> 
> You inferred there's sound in space. Your knowledge of physics is grade school level. IDK when you learned, but either it was in the 1950s or you're making it up as you go along and totally trolling for fun. But you know almost nothing about physics, astrophysics,   quantum theory/mechanics, gravity, or dark energy/matter.
> 
> You also said the singularity contained "nothing". 
> 
> 
> 
> You're trolling and disrupting the thread.
> ...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_R...rophysicist%29

*Hugh Norman Ross* (born July 24, 1945) is a Canadianastrophysicist, Christian apologist, and old Earth creationist.
Ross obtained his Ph.D. in Astronomy from the University of Toronto[1][2][3] and his B.Sc. degree in physics from the University of British Columbia.[4] He established his own ministry in 1986, called Reasons to Believe that promotes progressive and day-age forms of old Earth creationism. Ross rejects both abiogenesis and evolution as explanations for the origin and history of life. He promotes what he claims is a testable creation model,[5] and rejects the pseudoscientific argument of intelligent design as it is not science.[6][7]


*{Fair warning.....this IS science who I brought into this discussion.  Hugh Ross is a renowned & respected Astrophysicist.  A mature person discusses & does not throw temper tantrums.  Discuss the topic or not.  I have been keeping to the topic of the Big Bang.  And there are MORE angles to it than one posters view.}*

----------

BooBoo (04-14-2022),JMWinPR (04-14-2022)

----------


## Knightkore

https://reasons.org/explore/publicat...aught-it-first


The first direct scientific evidence for a big bang universe dates back to 1916. That is when Albert Einstein noted that his field equations of general relativity predicted an expanding universe.5 Unwilling to accept the cosmic beginning implied by such expansion, Einstein altered his theory to conform with the common wisdom of his day, namely an eternally existing universe.6
All these scientists, however, were upstaged by 2500 years and more by Job, Moses, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and other Bible authors. The Bible’s prophets and apostles stated explicitly and repeatedly the two most fundamental properties of the big bang, a transcendent cosmic beginning a finite time period ago and a universe undergoing a general, continual expansion. In Isaiah 42:5 both properties were declared, “This is what the Lord says—He who created the heavens and stretched them out.”

{Maybe some people here need an open mind & not act like white liberal Karens.  Damn.....I actually agree with UKSmarty that the Big Bang existed.  I'm more on his side scientifically.  But he won't have it because GOD?  LIBERALS bristle & want godless arguments.  Leave God out.....you are nothing more than a cackling Kamala Harris.}

----------

BooBoo (04-14-2022),Swedgin (04-14-2022)

----------


## Knightkore

But lets heat things up a bit.  Still sticking with the origin of the universe.

Anyone unwilling to truly discuss without maturity is frankly full of intellectual dishonesty.  And frankly I'm tired of dishonesty & bull.

----------

BooBoo (04-14-2022),Swedgin (04-14-2022)

----------


## Knightkore



----------

BooBoo (04-14-2022),Swedgin (04-14-2022)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

My studies of singularities are limited to singularities in a complex plane. 

They were important in complex (real + j imaginary) mathematics and in particular, integrals that include or encircle such points. 

Whether relevant or not to the physics of a "big bang", I don't know but I deem it important to say that while a singularity exists at a point, values (of whatever one is integrating) that are infinitesimally distant away in some higher dimension are not zero in analytic functions in that plane. So i question the use of the word "nothing" to describe what lies beyond the singularity. My studies of singularities were limited to 2 dimensions though. Extrapolating to higher dimensional integrals is beyond my experience.  

Still, I just throw it out there FWIW.

Also.... I recall that there are several types of singularities, identifiable by the way an integral that includes them behaves. If that's true in higher dimensions and if someone here knows what type of singularity the origin of the theoretical "big bang" is... clue me in. Thanks.

----------

BooBoo (04-14-2022),Knightkore (04-14-2022)

----------


## BooBoo

> It is wonderful to see when the science forum produces some frank discussions concerning why cosmologists find it so necessary to speculate origin and age of everything when not even the scope and size of everything is known, let alone what it may contain.
> 
> *The forum is ruined by arrogance and conceit of 'know it alls' berating and belittling anyone who might question or doubt their Modeling founded on scant and even nonexistence evidence supporting their grand theories.*
> 
> Science does not know how the universe began. Science does not know why it is there. Since many of the leading physicists of the last century, and now this one, are atheist this serves to justify the conflict existing between scientific and religious beliefs. As one notable physicist (sorry, I cannot recall his name) put it, " We cannot allow a Divine foot  in the door" was being honest enough to openly state it.
> 
> Thanks to the real science folks posting on this forum. It is refreshing to read your thoughts.



Reminds BooBoo of this one :
580d1dc49249a808b00b95d2713179ad_zps883a949f.jpeg..JPG

----------

12icer (04-15-2022),Knightkore (04-27-2022)

----------


## Sunsettommy

> scroll back in this forum, ive made dozens of detailed posts about the origin of the universe. Extremely technical, detailed posts.  I feel no compulsion to start repeating those post for a troll who has no real interest in the subject.
> 
> The issue is you havent come here to debate, you've come her to troll the forum and personally attack me. Im not inclined to engage you because  of the constant hostility you present to me time after time, and going back months. You are not someone i want to engage with, because your intent is malicious. You are now going to join  my ignore list. Dont waste your time trying to  engage with me ever again, for whatever reason or intent, which I have no doubt will be unpleasant.  No further acknowledgement by me of anything you post will ever occur again. Goodbye.


I think you are greatly overreacting here about my approach which was gentle and non confrontative in my posts no one else seems upset with me at all.

I have been greatly interested in the topic for decades never sure what is true or not some of the "big bang" science is beyond most people including me yet when someone like YOU as a scientist who had the opportunity to be helpful throw it away on bogus grounds against me which makes people wonder why you are so upset about it.

Take care of yourself.

----------

BooBoo (04-15-2022),Robert (04-14-2022)

----------


## Trinnity

FAIR WARNING Knightkore is  thread banned for continuing off topic remarks.

----------

BooBoo (04-15-2022)

----------


## Mr. Claws

> It is wonderful to see when the science forum produces some frank discussions concerning why cosmologists find it so necessary to speculate origin and age of everything when not even the scope and size of everything is known, let alone what it may contain.
> 
> The forum is ruined by arrogance and conceit of 'know it alls' berating and belittling anyone who might question or doubt their Modeling founded on scant and even nonexistence evidence supporting their grand theories.
> 
> Science does not know how the universe began. Science does not know why it is there. Since many of the leading physicists of the last century, and now this one, are atheist this serves to justify the conflict existing between scientific and religious beliefs. As one notable physicist (sorry, I cannot recall his name) put it, " We cannot allow a Divine foot  in the door" was being honest enough to openly state it.
> 
> Thanks to the real science folks posting on this forum. It is refreshing to read your thoughts.


 :Thumbsup20: ... amazing how a few people here seem to know _EVERY DAMN THING ABOUT EVERY DAMN KNOWN SUBJECT..._ *OR, HOW SURFING THE WEB AND TAKING NOTES CAN MAKE ONE APPEAR TO BE EINSTEINS CLONE!*

----------

BooBoo (04-15-2022),Sunsettommy (04-14-2022)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> ... amazing how a few people here seem to know _EVERY DAMN THING ABOUT EVERY DAMN KNOWN SUBJECT..._ *OR, HOW SURFING THE WEB AND TAKING NOTES CAN MAKE ONE APPEAR TO BE EINSTEINS CLONE!*



or could it be  a) some people are too lazy and stupid to acquire knowledge, and b) other people are more proactive, more curious, do more research and learn faster?  Type a) were the kids that sat at the back of the class, scoffed at learning and failed exams, and now have a dead end job, wheras type b) managed to get into university, and had a far better, productive, interesting life because they knew more and knew  how to gain the right sort of knowledge to get further.  Maybe that has something to do with it?  Maybe thats why they really do have a vast range of knowledge about many many subjects - because they never stop learning, and after 60 years, you learn an awful lot.


And here the thing. When you are a child, the first thing you learn is HOW to learn, if you fail to do that you fail at school. Then many people when they leave school stop learning, and then they forget how to learn. So they end up at aged 60, having learned nothing new for 40 years  and looking dumb as a post. But some people never stop stop learning, and learn how to learn faster, and so become vast troves of personal knowledge and experience.   Thus those people get called 'arrogant' or 'big headed' by the dumb fucks that stopped learning at grade 10 and spent their working lives sweeping the warehouse floor for peanut wages


Think thats a fair analysis?  Seems Einstein was Big Head, according to your theory......

----------


## Trinnity

Closed for review.

----------

BooBoo (04-15-2022)

----------


## Trinnity

I'm going to re-open the thread. 
Everyone please be civil.

----------

BooBoo (04-15-2022),Swedgin (04-14-2022)

----------


## CWF

> Wow. One of the greatest teachers of physics.  You are clueless.


Did you miss the part "Based on his own words"?  My comment was based on the video. I find it odd that this " greatest of teachers of physics" would be so cavalier regarding knowledge.  Whatever happened to common sense?  Do you have a clue?

----------


## JMWinPR

The O.P. was completely wrong about his statement of dynamite not exploding on the moon. Not only will explode on the moon, but under water as well. Even Silver Salutes, cherry bombs, and M-80s all do the same. They even have water proof fuses that once lit will burn underwater, let alone a vacuum. I fail to understand why, completely erroneous statements are permitted, but other well documented, factual statements are banned?

----------


## Northern Rivers

> Robert,
> 
> Like you, I am a man of faith, so I believe in DIVINE guidance of the Universe.  
> 
> The only "facts" I have to support this are my own experience, and, my own philosophy.
> 
> Those are NOT "facts" that I can expect anyone else to accept.  (And, indeed, I fully expect some to "correct" me on my own experiences, and my own thoughts.  See...some of us know more about what all of of us think, than we do, as individuals.  In the past, I had thought that a uniquely LIBERAL thought process, but, I was mistaken.)
> 
> _That said, I can still believe in the "Big Bang" theory.
> ...


Why does it have to be a "bang"??? Why not a continual "blast"...like a rocket engine instead of a bomb going off????

We are temporal beings. We couch everything in relation to time. Why? What if...that BANG is simply a sort of cornucopia that is ever-expanding and...when it got to our plane of existence...it appeared to be a BANG? One end...infinitesimally small...the other...infinitely large. It's still appearing in different planes...as, just that...a bang. 

This has a lot of implications for "the soul" and what happens to it. I call it a Quantum Reality.

I don't bring religion into it. I'm of the mind that we tend to see magic...god (small 'g')...in things we can't explain.

But, saying that...who knows what sort of intellect is really out there...over us? PJFarmer in 'The Riverworld Series' saw "a benevolence" that made sure sentient beings had a soul. Who the fook knows???? I don't.... :Dontknow:  All I do know, is...it's creepin' up on me.  :Sad20:

----------

BooBoo (04-15-2022),Swedgin (04-15-2022)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Why does it have to be a "bang"??? Why not a continual "blast"...like a rocket engine instead of a bomb going off????



If I ever get to create a universe, I'm gonna make the creation sound like this.

----------

BooBoo (04-15-2022),Northern Rivers (04-15-2022)

----------


## UKSmartypants

This just popped up on my youtube notifications, coincidentally, it explains it non technically

----------

Call_me_Ishmael (04-15-2022),MisterVeritis (04-15-2022)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Why does it have to be a "bang"??? Why not a continual "blast"...like a rocket engine instead of a bomb going off????



Because it took an enormous unimaginable amount of energy, and from out side the universe, and the event that created this was not a continuous event.

----------


## UKSmartypants

> What if...that BANG is simply a sort of cornucopia that is ever-expanding and...when it got to our plane of existence...it appeared to be a BANG? One end...infinitesimally small...the other...infinitely large. It's still appearing in different planes...as, just that...a bang. 
> 
> This has a lot of implications for "the soul" and what happens to it. I call it a Quantum Reality.



1. it does indeed appear to be ever expanding, which is baffling, something must be pumping energy into the continued expansion because it getting faster. We think dark energy has something to do with it. We know dark energy is there, we just dont have a clue what it is.  There no sign the expansion is slowing. This also implies the speed of light must be slowing down, which is insane.  


2. some people are indeed coming round to the idea that reality  is interconnected to consciousness is interconnected to various quantum effects.  Some people take this further  and imply the universe itself must be conscious, others interpret this as evidence the universe is a simulation, and others say its proof the universe is in fact  a 11D hologram projecting onto a 2D brane.  Take your pick, this is leading edge stuff.  Theres just so many unanswered questions.

----------

Swedgin (04-15-2022)

----------


## Swedgin

> Why does it have to be a "bang"??? Why not a continual "blast"...like a rocket engine instead of a bomb going off????


Why not The Big Poof?

----------

BooBoo (04-15-2022)

----------


## Authentic

> Why not The Big Poof?


Kind of like the critical plotline in the book _The Sum of All Fears_?

----------


## 12icer

Why anything but an opening of a flower as it blooms? Let there be light. 
To imagine the known universe of man as the ONLY existence in infinity is surely an arrogant position to take.
Alpha to Omega may be infinity but this universe may only be alpha and omega to those that exist within the boundaries of its existence and not even outside alpha to infinity.
The science of Physics is bound by the limits of the known forces that can be studied within the available parameters. 
When you go outside those parameters you may find a totally different result for the same type of experiment.

----------

BooBoo (04-15-2022)

----------


## BooBoo

Keeping IT Brief :

https://www.sciencephiletheai.com/

Physics - YouTube

----------


## Robert

Perhaps this will shed light on the Big Bang.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Why not The Big Poof?


Already taken..
220px-Liberace_8_Allan_Warren.jpg

----------

BooBoo (04-27-2022),MisterVeritis (04-15-2022),Sunsettommy (04-15-2022)

----------


## Trinnity

> Some people take this further  and imply the universe itself must be conscious, others interpret this as evidence the universe is a simulation, and others say its proof the universe is in fact  a 11D hologram projecting onto a 2D brane.


I find this fascinating. Can you tell more? I'd like to hear more.

----------

BooBoo (04-27-2022)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> I find this fascinating. Can you tell more? I'd like to hear more.



well ill try, this is all leading edge stuff.  


Do we live  in a simulation - Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50â50 - Scientific American

Is the Universe a hologram - Holographic universe theory: why some physicists believe were living in a giant hologram - Vox

Is the Universe concious -  What Is Consciousness? Is the Universe Conscious? - Theories



Sorry, non of them are short summaries, but its a complex subject and its all new thinking

----------


## Authentic

Is the big bang settled science?

----------


## Physics Hunter

> well ill try, this is all leading edge stuff.  
> 
> 
> Do we live  in a simulation - Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50â€“50 - Scientific American
> 
> Is the Universe a hologram - Holographic universe theory: why some physicists believe were living in a giant hologram - Vox
> 
> Is the Universe concious -  What Is Consciousness? Is the Universe Conscious? - Theories
> 
> ...


New thinking... pffft!  
Some of us have been thinking about the simulation vs reality stuff our entire lives.  It is only the Godless (not implying you, I don't know what you believe) that have to inch toward the truth that the consciousness of God is large and strong enough to blur the lines between is the universe and our lives actually real, or just a fleeting thought in His mind.

----------

BooBoo (04-27-2022)

----------


## Physics Hunter

> Is the big bang settled science?



Not even close as formulated.  

There are all sorts of measured phenomena that it explains...
The spherical nature of the universe as we can measure it
Symmetric outward expansion.
Since looking back toward the center of the universe, we get to glimpse back into time to a certain extent we see things that beg an explanation...


But as with most theories in Physics, there are holes,
Dark Matter
Dark Energy
...

That is what made Physics fun for this Born Again smart kid.  I wanted to use the brain God gave me to help increase our understanding of His creation.  Then some tried to turn it into a thought controlled propaganda mill.

I moved out into shit they can't fake with bias...
Flight control
Data reduction...

----------

BooBoo (04-27-2022)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Not even close as formulated.



The general idea is settled. There are no alternative theories. 

Its just an argument about details, maths and physics  now.  Im not a fan of the Standard Model, too many holes, so its not the end of the road, theres something deeper we're missing.  Whatever that deeper theory is, and my money is on M Theory, may cast new light on the fine mechanisms of the Big bang. Point is  its all interconnected, the very big and the very small, and the beginning.

----------


## CWF

Big Bang is 'settled' as science because the scientists say so, and not because they have any doubt about it.

 After all, Fred Hoyle was a devout atheist and the list is long regarding like minded fellows of the club. Richard Dawkins, Steven Weinberg, Peter Atkins, Emile Zuckerkandl, Victor Stenger, Taner Edis, all fellow atheists, and joined by geneticists such as Richard Lewontin, who said that he took the side of science because, " we cannot allow a Divine foot in the door."

If anyone thinks that atheistic cosmologists receive grants in order to fund an unbiased desire to discover knowledge then think again.   This is not the case.

It seems that the more absurd a theory is the more settled it becomes. And now we have "new thinking" producing more absurdities to ponder on.  No wonder people are confused.  Who ordered that, by the way.

The truth is banned from the science forum.  Did you expect more?

----------

BooBoo (04-27-2022),OneDumbBlonde (04-16-2022)

----------


## donttread

> This seems to be accepted by a good many lay people.
> 
> That a mass of nothing managed an explosion labeled the big bang.
> 
> Was there really a big bang?  What happened to it takes sound to be heard?  I mean a bang is noise in air. But in a vacuum?
> 
> Take the moon. And you carry dynamite with you. And there you light a fuse and the dynamite looks like it exploded. But what would explode?
> 
> An explosion happens in air. The Moon has no air. Ergo no explosion nor big bang.
> ...



Extremely good point. However to understand how we got here you have to believe one of three things
1) A ball of matter/energy existing outside of space and time ( and as you point out in a vacuum) just blew up one day even though there were no days
and that set off the process of well us
2) A magic being also existing outside of space and time just decided to make it all one day 
3) We have no idea how it all came to be

I subscribe to #3 although I am not an atheist. More of a deist but not quite that either. But about the how I am not sure.

And let's remember that Cosmology and/or Astro Physics have a history of changing the "facts" to fit their theories rather than the other way around

----------

BooBoo (04-27-2022),Robert (04-16-2022)

----------


## Physics Hunter

> The general idea is settled. There are no alternative theories. 
> 
> Its just an argument about details, maths and physics  now.  Im not a fan of the Standard Model, too many holes, so its not the end of the road, theres something deeper we're missing.  Whatever that deeper theory is, and my money is on M Theory, may cast new light on the fine mechanisms of the Big bang. Point is  its all interconnected, the very big and the very small, and the beginning.


I would suggest that some facts upon which the BB is postulated are pretty solid, as partially listed, but it is just a theory.

----------

BooBoo (04-27-2022)

----------


## Northern Rivers

> The general idea is settled. _There are no alternative theories. 
> _
> Its just an argument about details, maths and physics  now.  Im not a fan of the Standard Model, too many holes, so its not the end of the road, theres something deeper we're missing.  Whatever that deeper theory is, and my money is on M Theory, may cast new light on the fine mechanisms of the Big bang. Point is  its all interconnected, the very big and the very small, and the beginning.


Nonsense...

----------

BooBoo (04-27-2022),donttread (04-27-2022)

----------


## Physics Hunter

> Nonsense...


Wait until NonSqtr returns with 22 dimensional "Manifolds"...   :Cool20:

----------

BooBoo (04-27-2022),Northern Rivers (04-17-2022)

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Wait until NonSqtr returns with 22 dimensional "Manifolds"...



I tried to persuade him about 22D anti de sitter space, he wouldnt have it.....and  ive gone off the idea now as well, the maths is absurd



Ive also tried, prompted by Roberts thread, to determine any information on the speed of Sound in A Quark Gluon Plasma. It very complex.  What is obvious is that  pressure wave scan propagate through a QGP, and in fact mach waves will make a sonic boom, but i  cant see a mechanism by which you would create such a pressure wave

----------


## Physics Hunter

> I tried to persuade him about 22D anti de sitter space, he wouldnt have it.....and  ive gone off the idea now as well, the maths is absurd
> 
> 
> 
> Ive also tried, prompted by Roberts thread, to determine any information on the speed of Sound in A Quark Gluon Plasma. It very complex.  What is obvious is that  pressure wave scan propagate through a QGP, and in fact mach waves will make a sonic boom, but i  cant see a mechanism by which you would create such a pressure wave


Sound only travels through solids, liquids, and gasses.  I can't imagine any of that at the level which you speak, it's just an EM soup.  What would sound wave-in?

Sort of the MichaelsonMorely Aether question for subatomic particles and sound...

----------

BooBoo (04-27-2022)

----------


## BooBoo

> Is the big bang settled science?


Anyone Know what happened to this ^one^, last post was 04/19/2022...?!?

----------


## donttread

Gentlemen the truth is, most likely, that we lack the understanding to truly comprehend how it all came to be so we fill in the blanks
Sometimes with religion which is not supposed to explain because it's all based upon faith

And sometimes by trying to turn what we do know into a real explanation.

----------

BooBoo (04-27-2022),Swedgin (04-28-2022)

----------


## MisterVeritis

> Gentlemen the truth is, most likely, that we lack the understanding to truly comprehend how it all came to be so we fill in the blanks
> Sometimes with religion which is not supposed to explain because it's all based upon faith
> 
> And sometimes by trying to turn what we do know into a real explanation.


Current theories can only take us so far back. We can get back to the singularity, but can go no earlier with existing theories.

----------


## donttread

> Current theories can only take us so far back. We can get back to the singularity, but can go no earlier with existing theories.


Can we? Doesn't even that require some magic dark matter or some equally scientifically unprovable thing? I keep saying where did the singularity come from to begin with? People tell me I just don't understand but they can never provide a meaningful answer.

----------


## MisterVeritis

> Can we? Doesn't even that require some magic dark matter or some equally scientifically unprovable thing? I keep saying where did the singularity come from to begin with? People tell me I just don't understand but they can never provide a meaningful answer.


Dark matter and dark energy. We know from the moment of the singularities' expansion until now. We don't have a theory yet to explain what came before the expansion. Nor do we know how to understand dark matter and energy. Is that a problem?

----------

Swedgin (04-28-2022)

----------


## donttread

> Dark matter and dark energy. We know from the moment of the singularities' expansion until now. We don't have a theory yet to explain what came before the expansion. Nor do we know how to understand dark matter and energy. Is that a problem?



Umm yeah. the entire theory, decades of work, careers, university grants etc. Based upon the explosion of something they cannot explain.
Then at some point there is a huge hole in some of the math regarding our explanation of the universe so they invented dark matter to make the theory work instead of rebuilding the theory to fit the math. I mean how does that even qualify as science?

----------


## MisterVeritis

> Umm yeah. the entire theory, decades of work, careers, university grants etc. Based upon the explosion of something they cannot explain.
> Then at some point there is a huge hole in some of the math regarding our explanation of the universe so they invented dark matter to make the theory work instead of rebuilding the theory to fit the math. I mean how does that even qualify as science?


Science is based on observations and analysis. Don't worry about it.

----------


## Authentic

> Anyone Know what happened to this ^one^, last post was 04/19/2022...?!?


< raises hand, oh I know, I know!

----------

