The Big Bang? More Like The Big Who Gives A #.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Pics or it did not happen!

Here ya go

The cosmic microwave background radiation is a remnant of the Big Bang and the fluctuations are the imprint of density contrast in the early universe. The density ripples are believed to have given rise to the structures that populate the universe today: clusters of galaxies and vast regions devoid of galaxies.
aether.lbl.gov...

originally posted by: Klassified
True enough, but for all our evidence and "facts". Science is still about probabilities, not proof. So a theory is still a theory, no matter how much evidence we have, until the probabilities are so high as to make it a given. And very little at this point is a given.

Science is about hard evidence, not probabilities. You have it backwards. A scientific theory is based on objective evidence, it isn't "just a theory". It's the way something works according to the data that scientists have discovered. Obviously no theory is proven absolutely 100%, because details are always subject to change when new evidence emerges, but you aren't going to suddenly see something emerge that falsifies a scientific theory completely because the theory is based on hard evidence.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
in the religion of science verified facts often change according to what new theory is put forth. So far that religion has not proven much of the big questions beyond mind minipulation of the masses. They get pissed because not everyone believes their theories 100%

LMAO at the "religion of science". Oh yeah, that religion that relies on hard evidence and facts. Not even a scientist believes every single aspect of a theory as 100% literal truth. That is a religious trait, just because that's how you interpret your scriptures does not mean that's how scientists discover evidence. Science is great because theories update as new facts are discovered, but you don't suddenly see an entire established scientific theory suddenly become 100% wrong, because it wouldn't be a theory if it wasn't verified. It's like the theory of gravity. We may not know exactly what causes it, or why it's there, but we know it's there 100%. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be a scientific theory.

i am with you.
Pics or it did not happen!

If only you held your belief system to the same standards. But nah, just blindly believe it while falsely and irrationally nitpicking science to the extreme degree. That's not hypocritical or anything.

Science relies on getting everyone to accept a belief is a fact just as other religions do.

Completely 100% wrong. Science holds true whether people believe it or not. It just not hinge upon that as religions do.

originally posted by: akushla99
...which is a problem for science and religion, re: Big Bang/Creationism -  both assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is...both theories fraught with ridiculousness (in essence) due to this assumption, wrapping (on the one hand) 'what we can measure' to a singularity (that cannot explain how that singularity could appear from nothing)...the other - monocled on the assumption that we are so important that we are THE only lifeform locale in this vast thing, and worthy/unworthy of a creators ministrations...both are wrong to varying degrees...

Å99

How does big bang assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is? The size of the universe / cosmos has nothing to do with the big bang. What matters is that all known matter in this universe that has been analyzed originally was bunched together and then expanded. It has nothing to do with the idea of something appearing from nothing. That is a religious viewpoint. The singularity could be eternal, it could have came from somewhere else, it could be related to other dimensions of existence. We don't know, but we do know that it originally expanded. That's what the theory centers around. It doesn't say anything about nothingness existing prior.

a reply to: Barcs

Science is about hard evidence, not probabilities. You have it backwards. A scientific theory is based on objective evidence, it isn't "just a theory". It's the way something works according to the data that scientists have discovered. Obviously no theory is proven absolutely 100%, because details are always subject to change when new evidence emerges, but you aren't going to suddenly see something emerge that falsifies a scientific theory completely because the theory is based on hard evidence.

3. It's not a process that seeks the truth or facts. The goal of science is to come as close as we can to understanding the cause-effect realities of the natural world. It's never "truth" or "facts". "Truth" and "facts" can mean different things to different people.

4. It's not a process that attempts to prove things. The process of science, when properly applied, actually attempts to disprove ideas (tentative explanations)... a process called "testing", or "challenging". If the idea survives testing, then it is stronger, and more likely an accurate explanation.

6. It's not a process that produces certainties, or absolute facts. Science is a process which can only produce "possible" to "highly probable" explanations for natural phenomena; these are never certainties. With new information, tools, or approaches, earlier findings (theories, or even facts) can be replaced by new findings.

12. Scientific Theories are not "tentative ideas" or "hunches". The word "theory" is often used this way in everyday conversation, but a theory in science refers to a highly probable, well-tested comprehensive explanation, usually for a large collection of observations.

What science is
What science is not

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: akushla99
...which is a problem for science and religion, re: Big Bang/Creationism -  both assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is...both theories fraught with ridiculousness (in essence) due to this assumption, wrapping (on the one hand) 'what we can measure' to a singularity (that cannot explain how that singularity could appear from nothing)...the other - monocled on the assumption that we are so important that we are THE only lifeform locale in this vast thing, and worthy/unworthy of a creators ministrations...both are wrong to varying degrees...

Å99

How does big bang assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is? The size of the universe / cosmos has nothing to do with the big bang. What matters is that all known matter in this universe that has been analyzed originally was bunched together and then expanded. It has nothing to do with the idea of something appearing from nothing. That is a religious viewpoint. The singularity could be eternal, it could have came from somewhere else, it could be related to other dimensions of existence. We don't know, but we do know that it originally expanded. That's what the theory centers around. It doesn't say anything about nothingness existing prior.

Cheers for the heads-up on the theory (my post wasn't a criticism of yours)...

All data then, points to it always existing (eternal)...either way...in reference to size, scope, range...

A99

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: akushla99
...which is a problem for science and religion, re: Big Bang/Creationism -  both assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is...both theories fraught with ridiculousness (in essence) due to this assumption, wrapping (on the one hand) 'what we can measure' to a singularity (that cannot explain how that singularity could appear from nothing)...the other - monocled on the assumption that we are so important that we are THE only lifeform locale in this vast thing, and worthy/unworthy of a creators ministrations...both are wrong to varying degrees...

Å99

How does big bang assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is? The size of the universe / cosmos has nothing to do with the big bang. What matters is that all known matter in this universe that has been analyzed originally was bunched together and then expanded. It has nothing to do with the idea of something appearing from nothing. That is a religious viewpoint. The singularity could be eternal, it could have came from somewhere else, it could be related to other dimensions of existence. We don't know, but we do know that it originally expanded. That's what the theory centers around. It doesn't say anything about nothingness existing prior.

Cheers for the heads-up on the theory (my post wasn't a criticism of yours)...

All data then, points to it always existing (eternal)...either way...in reference to size, scope, range...

A99

the point being, of course, that we dont know.

therefore it is irrational to say anything for certain.

except of course that the evidence indicates a big bang took place. that much is clear.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: akushla99
...which is a problem for science and religion, re: Big Bang/Creationism -  both assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is...both theories fraught with ridiculousness (in essence) due to this assumption, wrapping (on the one hand) 'what we can measure' to a singularity (that cannot explain how that singularity could appear from nothing)...the other - monocled on the assumption that we are so important that we are THE only lifeform locale in this vast thing, and worthy/unworthy of a creators ministrations...both are wrong to varying degrees...

Å99

How does big bang assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is? The size of the universe / cosmos has nothing to do with the big bang. What matters is that all known matter in this universe that has been analyzed originally was bunched together and then expanded. It has nothing to do with the idea of something appearing from nothing. That is a religious viewpoint. The singularity could be eternal, it could have came from somewhere else, it could be related to other dimensions of existence. We don't know, but we do know that it originally expanded. That's what the theory centers around. It doesn't say anything about nothingness existing prior.

Cheers for the heads-up on the theory (my post wasn't a criticism of yours)...

All data then, points to it always existing (eternal)...either way...in reference to size, scope, range...

A99

the point being, of course, that we dont know.

therefore it is irrational to say anything for certain other than something happened. and thats exactly as specific as we can get right now without speculating.

Agreed.

...but it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that given what 'we' do know - 'we' can specifically say without speculation that all available data points to it always existing...

A99

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: akushla99
...which is a problem for science and religion, re: Big Bang/Creationism -  both assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is...both theories fraught with ridiculousness (in essence) due to this assumption, wrapping (on the one hand) 'what we can measure' to a singularity (that cannot explain how that singularity could appear from nothing)...the other - monocled on the assumption that we are so important that we are THE only lifeform locale in this vast thing, and worthy/unworthy of a creators ministrations...both are wrong to varying degrees...

Å99

How does big bang assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is? The size of the universe / cosmos has nothing to do with the big bang. What matters is that all known matter in this universe that has been analyzed originally was bunched together and then expanded. It has nothing to do with the idea of something appearing from nothing. That is a religious viewpoint. The singularity could be eternal, it could have came from somewhere else, it could be related to other dimensions of existence. We don't know, but we do know that it originally expanded. That's what the theory centers around. It doesn't say anything about nothingness existing prior.

Cheers for the heads-up on the theory (my post wasn't a criticism of yours)...

All data then, points to it always existing (eternal)...either way...in reference to size, scope, range...

A99

the point being, of course, that we dont know.

therefore it is irrational to say anything for certain other than something happened. and thats exactly as specific as we can get right now without speculating.

Agreed.

...but it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that given what 'we' do know - 'we' can specifically say without speculation that all available data points to it always existing...

A99

there is a difference between minute possibility and overwhelming probability.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: akushla99
...which is a problem for science and religion, re: Big Bang/Creationism -  both assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is...both theories fraught with ridiculousness (in essence) due to this assumption, wrapping (on the one hand) 'what we can measure' to a singularity (that cannot explain how that singularity could appear from nothing)...the other - monocled on the assumption that we are so important that we are THE only lifeform locale in this vast thing, and worthy/unworthy of a creators ministrations...both are wrong to varying degrees...

Å99

How does big bang assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is? The size of the universe / cosmos has nothing to do with the big bang. What matters is that all known matter in this universe that has been analyzed originally was bunched together and then expanded. It has nothing to do with the idea of something appearing from nothing. That is a religious viewpoint. The singularity could be eternal, it could have came from somewhere else, it could be related to other dimensions of existence. We don't know, but we do know that it originally expanded. That's what the theory centers around. It doesn't say anything about nothingness existing prior.

Cheers for the heads-up on the theory (my post wasn't a criticism of yours)...

All data then, points to it always existing (eternal)...either way...in reference to size, scope, range...

A99

the point being, of course, that we dont know.

therefore it is irrational to say anything for certain other than something happened. and thats exactly as specific as we can get right now without speculating.

Agreed.

...but it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that given what 'we' do know - 'we' can specifically say without speculation that all available data points to it always existing...

A99

there is a difference between minute possibility and overwhelming probability.

Are you saying - that there is a 'minute possibility' that something came from nothing?

A99

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: deadeyedick

Pics or it did not happen!

Here ya go

The cosmic microwave background radiation is a remnant of the Big Bang and the fluctuations are the imprint of density contrast in the early universe. The density ripples are believed to have given rise to the structures that populate the universe today: clusters of galaxies and vast regions devoid of galaxies.

aether.lbl.gov...

Grade A prime example of the outer reaches of the delusions in the religion of science.

I wonder who drew that cartoon?

Everything in your post is just guesses based of faith in assumptions.

Unless you were there to witness the event you can never be sure of what you are believing and along with the wild conclusions that that religion believes you have to have faith to cover the gap between knowing for sure and speculating the truth.

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: akushla99
...which is a problem for science and religion, re: Big Bang/Creationism -  both assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is...both theories fraught with ridiculousness (in essence) due to this assumption, wrapping (on the one hand) 'what we can measure' to a singularity (that cannot explain how that singularity could appear from nothing)...the other - monocled on the assumption that we are so important that we are THE only lifeform locale in this vast thing, and worthy/unworthy of a creators ministrations...both are wrong to varying degrees...

Å99

How does big bang assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is? The size of the universe / cosmos has nothing to do with the big bang. What matters is that all known matter in this universe that has been analyzed originally was bunched together and then expanded. It has nothing to do with the idea of something appearing from nothing. That is a religious viewpoint. The singularity could be eternal, it could have came from somewhere else, it could be related to other dimensions of existence. We don't know, but we do know that it originally expanded. That's what the theory centers around. It doesn't say anything about nothingness existing prior.

Cheers for the heads-up on the theory (my post wasn't a criticism of yours)...

All data then, points to it always existing (eternal)...either way...in reference to size, scope, range...

A99

the point being, of course, that we dont know.

therefore it is irrational to say anything for certain other than something happened. and thats exactly as specific as we can get right now without speculating.

Agreed.

...but it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that given what 'we' do know - 'we' can specifically say without speculation that all available data points to it always existing...

A99

there is a difference between minute possibility and overwhelming probability.

Are you saying - that there is a 'minute possibility' that something came from nothing?

A99

i am saying that no one knows what existed before this universe. or if there is an "outside" or what exists there. best to leave it to the experts.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Grade A prime example of the outer reaches of the delusions in the religion of science.

I wonder who drew that cartoon?

God !

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: akushla99
...which is a problem for science and religion, re: Big Bang/Creationism -  both assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is...both theories fraught with ridiculousness (in essence) due to this assumption, wrapping (on the one hand) 'what we can measure' to a singularity (that cannot explain how that singularity could appear from nothing)...the other - monocled on the assumption that we are so important that we are THE only lifeform locale in this vast thing, and worthy/unworthy of a creators ministrations...both are wrong to varying degrees...

Å99

How does big bang assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is? The size of the universe / cosmos has nothing to do with the big bang. What matters is that all known matter in this universe that has been analyzed originally was bunched together and then expanded. It has nothing to do with the idea of something appearing from nothing. That is a religious viewpoint. The singularity could be eternal, it could have came from somewhere else, it could be related to other dimensions of existence. We don't know, but we do know that it originally expanded. That's what the theory centers around. It doesn't say anything about nothingness existing prior.

Cheers for the heads-up on the theory (my post wasn't a criticism of yours)...

All data then, points to it always existing (eternal)...either way...in reference to size, scope, range...

A99

the point being, of course, that we dont know.

therefore it is irrational to say anything for certain other than something happened. and thats exactly as specific as we can get right now without speculating.

Agreed.

...but it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that given what 'we' do know - 'we' can specifically say without speculation that all available data points to it always existing...

A99

there is a difference between minute possibility and overwhelming probability.

Are you saying - that there is a 'minute possibility' that something came from nothing?

A99

i am saying that no one knows what existed before this universe. or if there is an "outside" or what exists there. best to leave it to the experts.

'Experts' aside...nice one

...therefore, since 'no one knows what existed before this universe. or if there is an "outside" or what exists there.'...best leave it to the ones who don't know...what they don't know...to tell us what they don't know...sounds legit...

A99

deadeyedick:

I wonder who drew that cartoon?

You're funny. If you drop the first two words of your moniker, you would find yourself aptly named.

That cartoon is a 360 degree thermal map of the universe which took 9 years to complete. Even if you live a 100 years you will never produce something as spectacular. Here, take a look and educate yourself. Free yourself from the fairy story you are obviously locked in.

map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

a reply to: deadeyedick

I se you've dropped all pretends of "just asking questions" and have moved straight into science denial.

a reply to: elysiumfire

That is why i chose the name.

The pic is great but it is not a pic of the big bang.

It is like you said a current view of things.

It is not that i do not find much of science to be beneficial but that there is no way to be sure 100% about big bangs.

I would not be as much of a dick if people would just call it what is and skip the false sureties.

For all we know it could be that the stars are just the street lights in another world.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: deadeyedick



I se you've dropped all pretends of "just asking questions" and have moved straight into science denial.

yea i am living in that small space between sciences theories and facts.

it is the place where science fills the gap with faith then deny the gap was ever existant.

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: akushla99

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: akushla99
...which is a problem for science and religion, re: Big Bang/Creationism -  both assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is...both theories fraught with ridiculousness (in essence) due to this assumption, wrapping (on the one hand) 'what we can measure' to a singularity (that cannot explain how that singularity could appear from nothing)...the other - monocled on the assumption that we are so important that we are THE only lifeform locale in this vast thing, and worthy/unworthy of a creators ministrations...both are wrong to varying degrees...

Å99

How does big bang assume the cosmos to be smaller than it actually is? The size of the universe / cosmos has nothing to do with the big bang. What matters is that all known matter in this universe that has been analyzed originally was bunched together and then expanded. It has nothing to do with the idea of something appearing from nothing. That is a religious viewpoint. The singularity could be eternal, it could have came from somewhere else, it could be related to other dimensions of existence. We don't know, but we do know that it originally expanded. That's what the theory centers around. It doesn't say anything about nothingness existing prior.

Cheers for the heads-up on the theory (my post wasn't a criticism of yours)...

All data then, points to it always existing (eternal)...either way...in reference to size, scope, range...

A99

the point being, of course, that we dont know.

therefore it is irrational to say anything for certain other than something happened. and thats exactly as specific as we can get right now without speculating.

Agreed.

...but it wouldn't be a stretch to assume that given what 'we' do know - 'we' can specifically say without speculation that all available data points to it always existing...

A99

there is a difference between minute possibility and overwhelming probability.

Are you saying - that there is a 'minute possibility' that something came from nothing?

A99

Even if there was a universe, or universes, prior to the expansion and inflation that created the one we currently inhabit, it still doesn't imply that our universe in its current inception, if there were nothing prior to its expansion, was created from nothing. The singularity which rapidly expanded to create this universe was not "nothing". The singularity was the sum of everything that went into the creation of the first generation stars ~100 MY after the Big Bang in an infinitely dense, gravitational singularity. Which contrary to most peoples thoughts was not in any way an explosion. To give some context, our own solar system is a 3rd or 4th generation star. Meaning that there were 2 or 3 solar systems here comprised of different and lighter elements than our own is. The early universe consisted almost exclusively of a couple different isotopes of Hydrogen and Helium and likely a great deal of dark matter. In short, there really isn't even a minute probability that the universe was created from nothing as the singularity itself was "something".

a reply to: newWorldSamurai

The space between galaxies is stretching so if that movement is reversed there should be a single point of origin. That's about all we have.

Not quite.

There is a lot of cosmological mathematics that also works out only if there is a singularity. Is the universe flat, convex, or concave? Turns out it is pretty flat so for the universe to behave as it does there also needs to have been a singularity and a lot more mass than we can currently detect (that is where the idea of 'dark matter' comes from).

But the big one for me is the idea that the expansion "event" ("Big Bang" if you like, but it really wasn't a bang) would have released a lot of radiation and that radiation, (called the "Cosmic Microwave Background") should be detectable. In the 1940's several scientists attempted to estimate what the temperature of the CMB should be, and getting different results, from 20Kelvin to over 50Kelvin.

The CMB was predicted in the 1940's and discovered by accident it the 1960's. It was measured to be 3Kelvin. The actual temperature indicates the age of universe. 3Kelvin means it could only be the artifact of the Big Bang and that it occured some 14 billions years ago.

Cosmic Microwave Background

The CMB is a snapshot of the oldest light in our Universe, imprinted on the sky when the Universe was just 380,000 years old. It shows tiny temperature fluctuations that correspond to regions of slightly different densities, representing the seeds of all future structure: the stars and galaxies of today.

The CMB is well explained as radiation left over from an early stage in the development of the universe, and its discovery is considered a landmark test of the Big Bang model of the universe. When the universe was young, before the formation of stars and planets, it was denser, much hotter, and filled with a uniform glow from a white-hot fog of hydrogen plasma. As the universe expanded, both the plasma and the radiation filling it grew cooler. When the universe cooled enough, protons and electrons combined to form neutral atoms. These atoms could no longer absorb the thermal radiation, and so the universe became transparent instead of being an opaque fog. Cosmologists refer to the time period when neutral atoms first formed as the recombination epoch, and the event shortly afterwards when photons started to travel freely through space rather than constantly being scattered by electrons and protons in plasma is referred to as photon decoupling. The photons that existed at the time of photon decoupling have been propagating ever since, though growing fainter and less energetic, since the expansion of space causes their wavelength to increase over time (and wavelength is inversely proportional to energy according to Planck's relation). This is the source of the alternative term relic radiation. The surface of last scattering refers to the set of points in space at the right distance from us so that we are now receiving photons originally emitted from those points at the time of photon decoupling.

Further evidence for the Big Bang is the

detection of signature patterns of polarized light in the CMB, attributed to gravitational waves in the early universe, which if confirmed would provide strong evidence of cosmic inflation and the Big Bang.

The scientists working on that last bit are still uncertain about their findings here, so there is more to be said about it.