EVE Search - The Big bang theory does not make sense.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

The Big bang theory does not make sense.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Caleb Paine ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.11.12 18:05:00 - [211] So... you're meaning to say that there's some kind of border to the universe, where the universe stops and 'nothing', as you put it, starts... It's not very infinite then, is it... -------------------------------- ISS Navy Task Force; Protecting your interest.
Caleb Paine ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.11.12 18:08:00 - [212] Originally by: Jon Engel To clarify. I myself beleive the Big Bang theory to be possible. I do not howevor have the arrogance to beleive it is the only possibility out there. Actually, accepting a theory as possible truth even for a second is being arrogant beyond your wildest dreams. Toy with the concept, dabble with it, mold it and try to debunk it. But not for a second accept it as truth. -------------------------------- ISS Navy Task Force; Protecting your interest.
Dee Ellis	Posted - 2006.11.12 18:13:00 - [213] Edited by: Dee Ellis on 12/11/2006 18:14:43 Originally by: Caleb Paine So... you're meaning to say that there's some kind of border to the universe, where the universe stops and 'nothing', as you put it, starts... It's not very infinite then, is it... Nooope, I mean that with the curent studies of quantum physics it might very much be nothing at the end as the end will be another point in the universe and so forth. And with that you can't reach the end, just other places of the universe. But that stuff is way, WAY overcourse for the eve forums to be honest And AGAIN: NO, change doesn't denounce infinity, it's not the change in itself but the loss of energy rom the object that removes the infinitum mechanic. Never mistake movement for action.
Caleb Paine ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.11.12 18:23:00 - [214] movement is travel from one point to another point. This could be as simple as physical movement but it could also be movement on the time line or any other change of state. Please define 2 points on an infinite line. movement denounces infinity time denounces infinity change denounces infinity Therefor the fact that we exist denounces infinity. -------------------------------- ISS Navy Task Force; Protecting your interest.
Dee Ellis	Posted - 2006.11.12 18:28:00 - [215] Edited by: Dee Ellis on 12/11/2006 18:30:48 Originally by: Caleb Paine movement denounces infinity time denounces infinity change denounces infinity Movement doesn't, loss of energy does. Time doesn't, as we can't define time, only movement, as is, time is movement Change doesn't, as change also defines loss of enegy in order to Not be infinite. Hence we can't denounce infinity, and hence, science still counts it as a possibility, not just for the fun of it but for the fact that it's not viable to denounce.
Admiral Seafort DarkStar 1	Posted - 2006.11.13 02:03:00 - [216] Caleb, do you realize the irony of what you're saying? You argue about the nonexistence of eternity or infinity, with such arbitrary and finite concepts as: Point Line Movement What is the point of discussing infinity in finite terms? ----- It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it.
WeirdNoise	Posted - 2006.11.13 21:18:00 - [217] Originally by: Antoinette Civari Reading these threads always make me want to study physics, only to be remembered that I suck at math. :\| So did Einstein.... some even claim he also sucked at physics and it was his wife who wrote his papers;-)
WeirdNoise	Posted - 2006.11.13 21:42:00 - [218] Originally by: Bhaal Things will be so much clearer when humans finally abandoned the nonsense of religion altogether... Not likely to happen. You're emitting a scientist opinion here, which is a form of religion. And it's a baby-one at that, say 200 years old. BTW, to reply to a Dark Shikari's comment, religion is not about faith, or the meaning of the word faith has to be redefined, perhaps with the help of the greek word in the new testament which was improperly translated as faith.
Dee Ellis	Posted - 2006.11.13 22:57:00 - [219] Originally by: WeirdNoise BTW, to reply to a Dark Shikari's comment, religion is not about faith, or the meaning of the word faith has to be redefined, perhaps with the help of the greek word in the new testament which was improperly translated as faith. I wonder what the hell Jesus preached if not faith Sig removed does not contain your name, email [email protected] if you have any questions - Xorus
Electric Cucumber Amarr coracao ardente Sani Khal'Vecna	Posted - 2006.11.13 23:12:00 - [220] Originally by: WeirdNoise You're emitting a scientist opinion here, which is a form of religion. And it's a baby-one at that, say 200 years old. science, is in no way, religion. there are no beliefs in science.

Mtthias Clemi Gallente Momentum.	Posted - 2006.11.13 23:20:00 - [221] Science is most definatly not a religion... im a confirmed catholic thank you, and i belive whole heartedly in the big bang theroy becuase it makes perfect sense, im 16, ive understood it for at least 5 years, it cant be that dificult to understand surely? ok ok that was harsh, i dont hate mods.. as an apology the mod who shows the most wuv gets a free mercedes...
Caleb Paine ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.11.13 23:37:00 - [222] Edited by: Caleb Paine on 13/11/2006 23:42:01 ^^^^ This is the sort of guy why I'm rambling like this... all I can say to him (it's probably all he could understand) is ROFLCOPTER! @Seafort; That is EXACTLY my point, you can't pinpoint anything in infinity, nor in time, nor in space (and therefore not in movement). This is why I stated earlier "Please define 2 points on an infinite line". It can't be done. Turning that around means that if we CAN pinpoint uhm... points there can't be infinity. And we can, we see movement, we experience time. Both are points and therefore must the line they are defined on be finite. -------------------------------- ISS Navy Task Force; Protecting your interest.
Admiral Seafort DarkStar 1	Posted - 2006.11.14 00:52:00 - [223] The reason why you can "pinpoint" anything, why anything can be presented as "objective" or "true" is because of the arbitrariness of the frame. Within an accepted set of arbitrary premises, you can make absolute definitions. However, such designations bear the general arbitrariness of their antecedent frame. ----- It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it.
Aloysius Knight Minmatar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.11.14 08:07:00 - [224] Originally by: Caleb Paine Actually, you're assuming this. The fact that there's no real proof of the existence of 'god' does NOT mean it's proven that there's NOT a 'god'. ah but at the same time your assuming there is a god purly for the fact that some claptrap stoneage book said there is one religion in genral ***es me off, so many people use it as an exsuice too exploit and futher there own goals, and the whole concept of a god is rubish, why would something that is all powerful all knowing teh bomb ect make the universe? why make an inferier object when u already have perfection? i can't beleave that some mombojumbo fary in a toga, its really just a form of finding your own strengh that u have. BUT, i do suport the ideas it trys* to promote, like love thy neboer, be nice and so on http://www.stevie.prince.dsl.pipex.com/AloysiusKnight.jpg http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/2107/nodecrashsiggb9.jpg Chose one, you must. Two is the way of pure ebilness, and pure ebilness is bad -ReverendM
Caleb Paine ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.11.14 08:43:00 - [225] Edited by: Caleb Paine on 14/11/2006 08:44:16 I'm assuming exactly zilch, as long as I don't KNOW stuff I won't accept nor deny anything. Seafort; yes, but as long as we are unable to KNOW (not theorize) within our own limitations anything other than the 3 dimensions + time it's what I will (have to) go with, anything else is just hearsay and hocus pocus at best. The fact that men with glasses tell you something completely off the wall doesn't make it any more true unless it's actually 100% proven without any anomalies. Playing around with this hocus pocus, while entertaining and a good training for the braincells, is just that; playing with concepts, hardly enough to make statements with on something that's very much beyond our grasp. Keep to what you KNOW, dabble with the rest. -------------------------------- ISS Navy Task Force; Protecting your interest.
Reiisha Frontier Technologies	Posted - 2006.11.14 11:27:00 - [226] Religion has a name in science - "Metaphysics" Also, 400 years ago people thought Newton was a genious and could never be corrected, since his science was 'right'. And there came Einstein to prove him wrong. And that's just one small example. Please remember, almost everything science 'knows' today will be disproven in a couple of hundred years at the latest. Stop hugging the notion that it will always be right. A few things to remember: Math is a human concept, not a truth. The simple notion than 1+1=2 may seem 'logical' to you, where in truth it's a definition, not a proven fact. It's hard to understand what i mean, but think about it. Math is a set of human definitions, not a universal rule, rooted deep in the human consciousness. It is a tool to describe (physics etc), not a ground law of the universe. I know you're going to shake your head and say "math IS the end-all of everything", but stop for a moment and think about why you are saying it. EVE History Wiki - Help us fill it!
Reiisha Frontier Technologies	Posted - 2006.11.14 11:29:00 - [227] Originally by: Caleb Paine movement is travel from one point to another point. This could be as simple as physical movement but it could also be movement on the time line or any other change of state. Please define 2 points on an infinite line. movement denounces infinity time denounces infinity change denounces infinity Therefor the fact that we exist denounces infinity. That's why your position in infitity makes for a perfect zero point. Your consciousness and awareness limits your imagination, so you can't imagine beyond a certain point. However, things may exist beyond our ability to perceive them (4th/5th dimensions and higher, for example), and dismissing the idea something exists because you can't perceive or imagine it is pretty stupid, especially in a scientific sense (bacteria, anyone?). EVE History Wiki - Help us fill it!
Caleb Paine ISS Navy Task Force Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.11.14 11:48:00 - [228] Can I hug you? You're exactly right; we lack the knowledge to solve these problems, therefore PLAYING with possible answers is ok but stating them as possible truth, even for a second, is rather arrogant. That is why I said that my otherwise flawless reasoning about how the universe can't exist has a small, tiny little problem; it in fact DOES exist. With the knowledge we have we'll keep running in circles. -------------------------------- ISS Navy Task Force; Protecting your interest.
Crumplecorn Gallente Aerial Boundaries Inc. Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.11.14 12:35:00 - [229] Originally by: Jon Engel Furthermore, the concept of nothingness, and no time is assinine. There was always something, there will always be something and something always has to be a catalyst of causation to start something. lol Originally by: Reiisha Math is a human concept, not a truth. lol ---------- IBTL \o/
Svavz Gallente Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.11.14 15:48:00 - [230] it didnt just come out of nothing, go back to 8th grade and learn a little Biggest black and death metal fan in iceland

Rodj Blake Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2006.11.14 16:03:00 - [231] Originally by: Jon Engel Deep Space microwaves trickling through the stars do not prove anything other than their are deep space microwaves trickling through the stars. You must admit that microwaves with the exact frequency predicted by BB theory trickling through space is a bit of a coincidence though. Dulce et decorum est, pro imperator mori It's great being Amarr, ain't it?
dennyreborn	Posted - 2006.11.14 16:53:00 - [232] Originally by: WeirdNoise Originally by: Antoinette Civari Reading these threads always make me want to study physics, only to be remembered that I suck at math. :\| So did Einstein.... some even claim he also sucked at physics and it was his wife who wrote his papers;-) they put that theory to the test. they looked at his wife's college scores and she had worse grades then him in math and physics. college level most of his problems in physics derived from him disagreeing with his instructors on everything particularly about the ether. turns out in the end his instructors were mostly wrong and he was right. not to mention i doubt his wife would continue to wright for him after he divorced her and married again.
Admiral Seafort DarkStar 1	Posted - 2006.11.16 06:34:00 - [233] Originally by: Caleb Paine Can I hug you? You're exactly right; we lack the knowledge to solve these problems, therefore PLAYING with possible answers is ok but stating them as possible truth, even for a second, is rather arrogant. That is why I said that my otherwise flawless reasoning about how the universe can't exist has a small, tiny little problem; it in fact DOES exist. With the knowledge we have we'll keep running in circles. I don't agree that it's "otherwise flawless." Until you prove an objective frame of reference, everything is subjectively shifted; as such you can't "know" anything in a manner that would satisfy "truth." Ex. you can't prove everything must have a beginning when you cannot establish, rigorously, that time is at all significant to the nature of existence. Thus your reasoning rests on a pair of axioms; it only proves that within your artificial and unprovable system, the (presumed) existence of the universe is contradictory. It does not say anything about the actual nature of the universe or existence, because that cannot be grasped. So I do agree that we know very little, and there is plenty of hand-waving in physics and "big-question" scientific thought (theories on the beginning of the universe, etc.). However, I don't think the example you provided is philosophically or logically sound, as it is based on two apparent "truths" that you cannot, in turn, prove to be true. ----- It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it.
Admiral Seafort DarkStar 1	Posted - 2006.11.16 06:38:00 - [234] Edited by: Admiral Seafort on 16/11/2006 06:39:54 Originally by: Reiisha [snip]... A few things to remember: Math is a human concept, not a truth. The simple notion than 1+1=2 may seem 'logical' to you, where in truth it's a definition, not a proven fact. It's hard to understand what i mean, but think about it. Math is a set of human definitions, not a universal rule, rooted deep in the human consciousness. It is a tool to describe (physics etc), not a ground law of the universe. I know you're going to shake your head and say "math IS the end-all of everything", but stop for a moment and think about why you are saying it. QF-frickin-T. Thank you so much. People so often take for granted the "absoluteness" of many fundamental branches of thought. Consider that the notion of numbers is an arbitrary way of dividing our world. Language, too. Indeed, any system of representation or logic is, to at least some degree, a Peircean symbolic system. ----- It is well that war is so terrible. We should grow too fond of it.
REALITY X	Posted - 2006.11.16 10:57:00 - [235] Edited by: REALITY X on 16/11/2006 11:00:26 Edited by: REALITY X on 16/11/2006 10:59:22 I apologise if I'm rehashing any opinions posted earlier in this thread, as I have not read it in its entirety thus far. I have devoted a lot of research and thought toward this topic for quite some time. Here is what I genuinely believe to be the cause for our universe's existance: Black Hole Origin Theory, as developed by physicists Quentin Smith and Lee Smolin. Our universe works as a perfect engine, with no need for any divine cause or influence... Here is why: We now have solid evidence that black holes reside in every galaxy so far observed, with strong evidence (x-ray flares) that a supermassive black hole exists at the centre of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, called "Sagittarius A". Although exactly how black holes are formed is not yet entirely understood, it is generally believed that they are created from the collapse of a star from its own gravitational weight. Several different types of black holes have been theorized, with what is called a "Kerr vacuum black hole" being the type concerned here relevant to "big bangs" (and not to be confused with a so-called Einstein-Rosen bridge; a wormhole). This type of rotating black hole (also known as a "white hole") has at its singularity point an infinitely curved disk edge, with the rest of it being extendible into a spacetime. Quentin Smith hypothesizes that the edge of this singularity disk is the "big bang" singularity of a new spacetime. Basically, the idea supposes that our entire universe exists and expands from around the disk "edge" of the singularity point of a black hole in a "parent" universe. As the black hole was initially created, a counter-acting enormously exponentional inflation of new space occured immediately thereafter (a negative pressure field; repulsion), which could be thought of as analagous to a "bubble", and would eventually result in the evidence of "dark energy" being the cause for our universe's observed acceleration and expansion. Not every black hole singularity in our(a) universe would result in a new universe. But with the potential for there being literally millions or billions of black holes in our own universe, it would imply that the creation of a huge number of "baby" universes would be the result. The reason why I see the universe as a "perfect engine", is because it appears to seed itself with the ability (stars) to potentially create black holes, which could potentially create more new universes. In this regard, it can be thought of as an infinite web of universes which are constantly refining their gravitational forces as they explore new elementary particle configurations, ones which would best lead them toward the optimal conditions for new copies to be created. There would be no beginning and no end, and no need for a god. It is a beautiful and amazing idea, and according to the existing evidence of the so-called "big bang" that we are aware of -- this hypothesis makes perfect logical sense. For reference, I have included a link to Quentin Smiths incredible paper, "THE BLACK HOLE ORIGIN THEORY OF THE UNIVERSE: FRONTIERS OF SPECULATIVE, CURRENT PHYSICAL COSMOLOGY". Enjoy! -X http://www.qsmithwmu.com/the_black_hole_origin_theory_of_the_universe_frontiers_of_speculative,_current_physical_cosmology.htm
Agent Li Galactic Defence Consortium	Posted - 2006.11.16 14:20:00 - [236] Originally by: Captin ShadowHawk I don't understand this theory it seems to be complete rubbish. What was there before the big bang, nothing? How can a universe be created from nothing? I think cosmologists need to put together another theory. Unless some one can explain the big bang theory to the average person. Rant over Thanks Just because you can't understand the math doesn't mean it's wrong.
Taaketa Frist The Praxis Initiative Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.11.16 16:25:00 - [237] The Big bang theory was clearing stolen from the Bible (Well ok, only to how the earth was created, maybe not the WHOLE universe) -------------- Dang nabit
Areconus Caldari Cereal Killerz Chimaera Pact	Posted - 2006.11.17 00:14:00 - [238] Originally by: Dark Shikari Edited by: Dark Shikari on 06/11/2006 05:30:46 Originally by: May Long one theory about the Pre Big Bang time has to deal with things called membrains. basiclly different'universes' sit inside another one and bang into each other now and then . . .sorta like ours could have. very much a theory and very complicated as it also tries to explain the acceleration of the universe as we are seeing it now. Any speculation about something before the Big Bang is, by definition (since we cannot interact with anything outside our universe) speculation. The concept of the colliding branes is completely made up, and while a nice idea that could explain things, is probably wrong. Just because something is based off a real theory does not give one an excuse to just make things up and write them up in Scientific American as if they were actual theories, and I get annoyed when they do it. Originally by: Mitten Originally by: Dark Shikari Originally by: flaming phantom Wtf? flaming phantom? Failed copypaste, fixed Its no more wrong than the big bang theory itself.... What would it be like if you could instantly travel to the very "wall" of the universe, the place where the universe stops, and then traveled right through..... Gloria Stitz- "Try not to bring reality in to these forums Otherwise we might take the game seriously"
Kurren Farscape Mining	Posted - 2006.11.17 00:35:00 - [239] I can't believe this thread has been allowed to last so long! --- --- --- --- My Sig Is Not Too Big...
JgGravy	Posted - 2006.11.17 01:31:00 - [240] It seems to be civil as far as the Big Bang theory threads go. Neither side has a good leg to stand by. Both sides are like a broken glass. Everything they need is right in front of them... but with no glue, or direction in which to put it all together.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.