[_ Old Earth _] Did the Big Bang happen? [Added For Debate]

[John]

Actually, the effects of black holes have been directly observed, as have been traces and evidence of the big bang. Red shift, cosmic background radiation etc.

Wrong: all of those "proofs" are flawed


Fortunately, the BB theory makes no such claim.

Wrong: the BB continued. we are supposed to have another BB in X number of years when all matter condenses itself again.

Since the BB isn't about an explosion of nothingness, but an expansion of spacetime, this point misses the mark as well.

Wrong: thats a load the BB is all about nothing exploding, unless you have a diffrent explaintion then they teach at school?

The BB was no explosion...

Wrong this is the defintion given my the dictonary: big bang
n. The cosmic "explosion" that marked the origin of the universe according to the big bang theory.

Since it's not about nothingness, this point is based on wrong premises.

Wrong: see above


A vaccuum can contain energy in form of radiation.

True: still not enough evidence to support a pile of dog poo



Please, learn about the BB theory before you criticize it.

You learn more about it sir.

good readin matreial http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?cat=1

 

[Dunzo]

Actually, the effects of black holes have been directly observed, as have been traces and evidence of the big bang. Red shift, cosmic background radiation etc.

Wrong: all of those "proofs" are flawed

OK. How?

Fortunately, the BB theory makes no such claim.

Wrong: the BB continued. we are supposed to have another BB in X number of years when all matter condenses itself again.

How does this relate to his point?

Since the BB isn't about an explosion of nothingness, but an expansion of spacetime, this point misses the mark as well.

Wrong: thats a load the BB is all about nothing exploding, unless you have a diffrent explaintion then they teach at school?

Source plz! I've never, ever, ever, heard any person sound of mind make such a claim.

The BB was no explosion...

Wrong this is the defintion given my the dictonary: big bang
n. The cosmic "explosion" that marked the origin of the universe according to the big bang theory.

No. Just no. The big bang is not an explosion, simply expansion from a denser, hotter universe to the less dense, cooler universe we have today.

good readin matreial http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?cat=1

Hovind is a moron.

 

[jwu]

Okay lets assume the BB did happen, please answer these.

1. There is no way to unite outward rushing particles. as the particles rush outward from the central explosion, they would keep getting farther and farther apart from one another.

2. Outer space is frictionless, and there would be no way to slow the particles. The BB is postulated on a totally empty space, devoid of a ll matter, in witch a single explosion fills it with outward-flowing matter. There would be no way those particles could ever slow.

3. The particles would maintain the same vector forever. Assuming the particles were moving outward through totally empty space, there is no way they could change direction. they could not get together and begin circling one another.

4. There is no way to slow said particles. They are traveling at supersonic speed and every kilomete would separate them even more from each other.

5. There is no way to change the direction of even one particle. They would keep racing on forever, never slowing, never changing direction. There is no way to get the particles to form into atoms or cluster into gaseous clouds. Angular momentum would be needed, and the laws of physics could not produce it.

6. how could their atomic structures originate ? atoms, even hydrogen and helium, have complex structures. there is no way that outward shooting particles, continually separating farther from each other as they travel, could arrange themselves into atomic structures.

Umm...ever heard of the fundamental forces of physics?
* Gravity
* Electromagnetism
* Weak Interaction (or Weak Nuclear Force)
* Strong Interaction (or Strong Nuclear Force)

They do exert force on those particles, hence all your points are based on wrong premises.

By the way, plagiarism is bad. You stole this drivel from
http://thetruthshallsetyoufree.wordpres ... hapter-2a/

Wrong this is the defintion given my the dictonary: big bang
n. The cosmic "explosion" that marked the origin of the universe according to the big bang theory.

Note the quotation marks around "explosion". It's a clue that this is a simplification of the real thing.
Online dictionaries are lousy places to look up physics terms by the way; they are directed at laymen and full of inaccurracies and simplifications. Find me an actual physicist calling it an explosion in a scientific paper.

[quote:fb32f]A vaccuum can contain energy in form of radiation.

True: still not enough evidence to support a pile of dog poo[/quote:fb32f]

 

[John]

plagiarism. really, since when did you discover anything new. arnt you just citing other people with your "evidence" do you really expect me to go out and get a Ph.D in whatever then come here with fresh material.


1 i still stand on this.

2. i put the "" there.

 

[jwu]

plagiarism. really, since when did you discover anything new. arnt you just citing other people with your "evidence" do you really expect me to go out and get a Ph.D in whatever then come here with fresh material.

Plagiarism is passing other people's work off as one's own, which is what you did. Had you paraphrased that website or given a link to it, then that would have been ok, but you didn't. Whether anyone of us actually discovered something new or not is an entirely different question.

1 i still stand on this.

Then please explain why the fundamental forces of physics don't destroy your line of reasoning, which depends on no forces whatsoever acting on the particles.

2. i put the "" there.

See? This misunderstanding hadn't happened if you had properly referenced your source, and marked any own modifications to it. Typically one would add a remark like [emphasis mine] or [quotation marks mine] to it so that the reader immediately recognizes the modifications.

But my challenge still stands - find me a reference of an actual physicist calling the big bang an explosion in a scientific paper. I couldn't care less what laymen call it.

 

[John]

Only human..i will add source links form now on.


i will dig around for the books names and such that say it was an explosion. (and add sources, lol)

i could list many textbooks witch say this but that does not seem to be enough for ya, if its wrong why do they teach it to the kids and confuse us on purpose so we look dumb when it comes to questioning and debates ?

 

[jwu]

i will dig around for the books names and such that say it was an explosion. (and add sources, lol)

i could list many textbooks witch say this but that does not seem to be enough for ya, if its wrong why do they teach it to the kids and confuse us on purpose so we look dumb when it comes to questioning and debates ?

These textbooks usually are only there to give a rough overview over the subject, they are not there to prepare anyone for actual technical debates.

But, if there are textbooks which do use the term "explosion", then the publisher should be made aware of this. Expansion is a much more fitting term.

By the way, the term "big bang" (which somehow implies an explosion) was at first used by critics who tried to ridicule the theory, not to accurately represent it. The title stuck to it, and the theory survived based on its evidence.

 

[John]

Hee hee, if nothing exploded (expanded) in nothing..did it make a sound

 

[jwu]

A quantum physicist would't call space "nothing"...it's "empty of matter", but not "nothing.

But no, at first there was no matter, it condensed from energy only somewhat later. So there was no sound ;)

 

[John]

The cosmic explosion that marked the origin of the universe according to the big bang theory.
Source: http://www.answers.com/topic/big-bang?cat=biz-fin

big bang
n.
The cosmic explosion that marked the origin of the universe according to the big bang theory.
Source: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/big+bang

Definition: Big Bang Theory; An astronomy theory that says the Universe began with a super-powerful explosion. Georges-Henri Lemaitre is called by some, the father of the Big Bang Theory.

Source: http://space.about.com/cs/glossaryb/g/bigbangtheory.htm

i just google it.

You call it the "big bang" and say it was just an expansion.

if i throw a grenade, it makes a BIG BANG, and the crimped coiled wires inside expand in every direction.

you describe a explosion in every aspect.

 

[jwu]

Neither answers.com, freedictionary.com and about.com are dedicated physics websites. They are written for laymen.

On the contrary, actual physics pages call it an expansion:

Georgia State University:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... oc.html#c1

NASA:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_exp.html

I'll grant you that it sometimes gets called an explosion in "three sentence summaries", but these are inaccurate by definition. One cannot sum up a complex theory of cosmology in three sentences.

if i throw a grenade, it makes a BIG BANG, and the crimped coiled wires inside expand in every direction.

you describe a explosion in every aspect.

An explosion implies some sort of detonation, which the Big Bang had not. That's a key point here.
An expansion is very similar, but it lacks the detonation. E.g. blowing up a balloon.

As mentioned earlier, the term "big bang", with its implication of an explosion, was coined by critics of the theory who wanted to ridicule it. The theory "won", but the term stuck to it.

Anyway, this doesn't seem to get us anywhere. Is there a specific point which you want to make, which depends on the Big Bang being an explosion?

 

[John]

It does seem to be going noware.

Curious child: "How was the universe created?"
Guy: "The universe was created in the Big Bang, where there was a huge expansion, and all the matter was spread everywhere."
Child: "What expanded?"
Guy: "The universe."
Child: "But then the universe existed, it was just small."
Guy: "Yes."
Child: "Then how was the universe created?"

 

[jwu]

Curious child: "How was the universe created?"
Guy: "The universe was created in the Big Bang, where there was a huge expansion, and all the matter was spread everywhere."
Child: "What expanded?"
Guy: "The universe."
Child: "But then the universe existed, it was just small."
Guy: "Yes."
Child: "Then how was the universe created?"

Physicists are working on this...they already have some ideas, but these are way over my head. I'm fine with saying, "God sparked it".