I am a fan of science, but the Big Bang doesn't seem realitstic to me.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Raggedyman

Well apparently entropy must in-cress if indeed our universe is a closed system.

Special relativity sets the speed of light, or so my physics teacher lead me to believe.

Does it change as a consequence of the nature of the vacuum of space through? Apparently that's debatable or so some scientists seem to suggest.

If it does vary or is non-constant that could mean that estimates of the size of the universe might be way off.

Are you making statements or asking questions?

I don't know, I don't have the answer
Is it an open or closed system? I don't know, how can I answer anything if there is no,evidence to the system being open or closed?
Relativity, I don't know, I am asking questions, listening to others questions and understanding their questions because I don't know. String theory sounds silly, maybe it's right, I don't know.

Time isn't constant so,why should light be, it's being debated now

Yet here we are at page whatever listening to people saying that it's fact and proven, look at truebrit, ask him those questions
He knows, he told me

Don't ask me, I am the resident dummy becaUse I admit I don't know.
Everyone else dose evidently, because a man in a white coat told them. No questions, evidence required

and I am stupid, ironic don't you think...

I'd say the theory is just to maintain our sanity and provide mild comfort to our thoughts. We'll never really be able to understand where we are from until we can actually conceptualize "Nothing". We've known the universe to have existed forever, but we've never known "Nothing" to have existed at any point, nor can we truly conceptualize "Nothing".

We've only thought that there must have been nothing before we existed and we're struggling with the idea of it, it's far beyond the scope of our very limited brains. If you every try to think of it what do you come up with? Many racing thoughts ranging from infinitely dark stillness to infinitely white stillness. But both are wrong as they are both conceptualizations of our brain based on what we have seen.

It's possible that "Nothing" has never existed we've been struggling with the concept of how can something come from nothing, we'll possibly never know, until we can discover what true "nothing" is, which I doubt we'll ever figure out.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Come on KS, how do you know it takes longer than that, that's stupid
You don't know, you are just talking for the sake of talking

Effectively it should take one day only, not millions of years
One day the DNA changes and the animal evolve to,another animal what's the alternative, it's your belief, not mine.
I don't understand evolution, never have

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yet they are still diametrically opposed on so many different levels.

Difference is science promotes progress where as religion not so much.

Both still require a measure of faith through.

Science somewhat refines its ideologies over time, if our religions did the same one has to wonder as to the conclusion they would come to?

Yeah. This is why I have such difficulty accepting people who say that the key to understanding spirituality is to couple religion with science. No I think I'd rather just keep going with defined topics. That way you can build up a picture of an event one piece at a time. Religion paints a picture first then fights tooth and nail as reality chips away at it bit by bit.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Buddy i think the universe is stupid and ironic......possibly by design.

We simply don't know if space-time is constant. That question remains to be answered.

Don't know why you assume i imagine you to be the "the resident dummy". If i thought that to be the case i would not even bother to reply.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
I don't understand evolution, never have

Yes. You just identified the entire problem with your debate approach. Attempting to argue against a topic without properly understanding it first. That's why you can say ridiculous things like evolution should take a day without batting an eye. Seeing as how evolution, at a minimum, takes place over generations there is literally zero logical way that evolution could happen over the coarse of a day. Unless you are talking about animals or life that live their entire lifespan in a fraction of the span of a day (that way many many generations could live and die during the course of that day).

a reply to: andy06shake

" Religion paints a picture first then fights tooth and nail as reality chips away at it bit by bit."

The initial picture through is problematic.

A creation of Man as apposed to the implication of the word of God/Gods.

a reply to: andy06shake

Yep. That is the flaw with assuming grandiose assumptions about the greater universe without evidence defining all the smaller things first. That is why whenever you start studying a new science or a new math (well math is just a science) you always start with the base objects that define that topic.

But keep in mind that there could still be a kernel of truth in the picture that religion has painted. It's just stupidly tedious chipping away at the lies, deceit, and poor assumptions that people have ingrained into their heads through rote memorization rather than actual study of the evidence.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Guess we are damned if we do and damned if we don't really. What a predicament!

I agree math is pretty much science and vice versa, if there is any true universal language that is where we will find it.

a reply to: andy06shake

Yes. Unfortunately we haven't developed a methodology that eliminates all assumptions nor have we identified the base building blocks of the universe that we can then build from to find how everything else works. We are sitting in a sea of unknown with no idea where the borders are.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Leading edge mathematics seems to suggest its holographic by nature, might not be that far away from proving such ether.

If our universe is holographic that would indeed put rather a new spin on a whole manner of controversial subjects.

Interesting times in which we live.

a reply to: droid56
The Big Bang, like most of science, It is all guesswork.
The worst thing about it is that those 5 actors get paid $1 million dollars an episode.

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Guesswork based on facts we have available is infinitely preferable to the alternative through.

Science may indeed be our best guess but the guess is refined somewhat and backed up by evidence to support such.

The show all the same has begun to suck arse as the seasons progress. LoL

a reply to: Raggedyman
Evolution is all guess work too. Every dude that finds a bone wants to claim it as a whole new line of homo.
Instead of excepting that there was massive interbreeding between all types of humanoids.
Humans are all about nookie.

a reply to: andy06shake
The alternative being to admit that it IS all guesswork?
Or that a Godhead willed it into being?

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

There are somewhat less definitive alternatives.

Truth of the matter is we will provide far more meaningful answers should we ever devise a means of getting off this rock.

And the only way we will ever achieve such is to employ that guesswork(science) to accomplish such.

OP. Of course the big bang theory is unrealistic.
If you were a true fan of science you should have already realised that theoretical physics is mostly horse sh!t. It is nothing more than a new religion.
Experimental physics and applied sciences are scientific. Theoretical physics is NOT scientific. ie. Not real.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Raggedyman, its all been put before you before, and you have ignored it or failed to understand it, either by way of your own internal dogma, or by way of witlessness, I care no longer which.

The fact of the matter is that you do not command me, and I am not your secretary. I am an intensely busy man, and the big bang is a LARGE subject, requiring, even to compile the available evidence for perusal, a significant expenditure of time. Put simply, I would have to care a great deal more about your education than I do, to utilise my very valuable time, in spoon feeding you what you ought to be going out and getting for yourself.

Now, either quit slacking, get off your arse and find the data for yourself, or do not. But do not think to presume upon me to spend my time on you, when you have shown so many times that you are as information resistant as the Trump campaign, not to mention significantly less witty.

Believing in first causes seems to be the default position for human beings, no mater if it calls itself science or religion.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I have not read the thread, but I have to say True, this has to be the most polite way I have ever seen in telling someone to go to hell. lol.