Big Bang Theory confirmed.

Originally posted by Knives4eyes

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Terminal1

 

Gravity may not be a weak force after all. It could be "weak" because it is the one force that permeates through all dimensions...holding everything together.

edit on 1-4-2013 by Knives4eyes because: (no reason given)

I do not believe gravity to be a weak force since it is influenced by mass.

edit on 1-4-2013 by Knives4eyes because: (no reason given)

Gravity holds the planets in their orbit.

Yet is weak enough to let you jump up and down here on this massive ball of muck.

As opposed to a magnet, if a magnet were the size of the earth, net even a screw would be able to move.

Originally posted by Knives4eyes

Originally posted by JayinAR
reply to post by Knives4eyes

 

It isn't influenced BY mass. It INFLUENCES mass. Hell, it creates mass.

Doesn't seem so weak now with that perspective change huh?

you're not understanding the difference between the weak and strong forces..

At least I think this to be the case given your arguments for gravity being a 'strong' force.

Relative to mass my good man.

reply to post by Knives4eyes


The fact that many galaxies spin in retrograde proves the BBT false just on elementary physics alone. The law of the conservation of angular momentum works in space just as it does on Earth.

Whoopdee doo

What do we have here, more modern scientific ASSUMPTIONS being labeled as fact do we?

Let me get this straight now and put this is laymen's terms.

People, long time ago, come up with the Big Bang Theory, cause it just sounds right. Even then people are touting it as fact, especially the ones that can't think of anything better than to spat in the face off all religious matter at once. There was no proof then, just a straight up theory, but it was still "fact" to the science folk.

Then they come up with a microwave model of what they believe it might look like if the big bang actually did happen. Because even though when this microwave model was being made back in, 1992 was it, they were able to map all the hot and cold spots that the known galaxies left behind as the poot pooted their way from the central point of where the BIG BANG took place.

And now, when they matched it all up, it all matched up oh so perfectly to the microwave models and all that jazz but wait... we've discovered a whole bunch of new galaxies and celestial models since then, and there are apparently millions more out there according to other scientific theory.

But their models being "up to date" is besides the point. It is the very fact that they use a blatant assumption in the damn explanation of their proof that was summarized by the OP.

These spots are related to the gravitational field in the early universe, only instants after the Big Bang, and are the seeds for the giant clusters of galaxies that stretch hundreds of millions of light years across the universe.

and from the article

COBE was built at Goddard to measure microwave and infrared light from the early universe. COBE determined that the cosmic microwave background, which is essentially the afterglow of the Big Bang, has a temperature of approximately minus 455 degrees Fahrenheit.

So the satellite, the COBE, told you that the Big Bang left behind temps of 455 Fahrenheit? Well wait a minute, how the hell does a satellite know what temps the Big Bang left behind? How the hell does a satellite know what a Big Bang is?

That's right it doesn't. The satellite registers differentials in temperatures. A bunch of scientists look at this differentials with the already set in stone belief that the Big Bang happened, and all of a sudden these scientists can safely assume through the 150 billion year old minds that they know what kind of temperatures the Big Bang left of and what they should be looking for to be proving it.



Here is the same essential argument in more ridiculous light:

I belief the man is a werewolf. I also believe that werewolves have moles on their left butt cheek. Since that man has a mole on his left butt cheek, I am correct. He is a werewolf.



Circular reasoning. Loaded questioning. Ludic fallacy. Causal oversimplification. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

That is the list of fallacies this "scientific proof" uses to "prove" the Big Bang, something that so long as the scientific method is actually held in any kind of regard in our scientific community, and so long as we remain anywhere remotely close to our current level of technology - no one is ever going to prove.

No matter how many rogue 400+ degree microwaves there are out in outer space.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Knives4eyes

 

The fact that many galaxies spin in retrograde proves the BBT false just on elementary physics alone. The law of the conservation of angular momentum works in space just as it does on Earth.

This is all but a matter of perspective, let me loan you mine.


Sometimes it's easier for someone to see it for their own eyes, the universe although seemingly complex is as simple as a clock, depending on perspective.





This is for anyone else that needs further help.

reply to post by Knives4eyes


What does Richard Dawkins have to do with Astrophysics?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Knives4eyes

 

What does Richard Dawkins have to do with Astrophysics?

That first video was for you, second video was for anyone arguing the semantics of werewolves with me.

I would like to know your thoughts regarding the first video, I choose wood to appeal to your christian side and that Jesus was but a simple carpenter.

reply to post by Knives4eyes


My initial reaction is how is the "clock" relevant to a vacuum environment in space?

Gravity must have an effect not shared in a vacuum.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Knives4eyes

 

My initial reaction is how is the "clock" relevant to a vacuum environment in space?

Gravity must have an effect not shared in a vacuum.

The law of the conservation of angular momentum works in space just as it does on Earth.


I believe you are correct when you said this earlier, there is no need for conflict in your words.
I am not your opponent.

My opinion is that science and math have without a doubt proved to me that there is a source, whether it be a code, a creator or a higher consciousness so don't fret, I am just a particular person.

Just throwing it out again, hoping someone might learn something new from thread.

reply to post by Knives4eyes


Errrmmm.... this is extremely old news. And your link appears to be from 2006.

Their findings strengthen the theory, they don't confirm it.

edit: however I give you props for that "science works bitches" video, now that is gold.

I believe there are "infinite" Big Bangs happening RIGHT NOW/simultaneously. And all are connected like a group of "bubbles/suds". EACH it's own, but connected at the "borders" of the other suds. Each bubble is it's own reality, dimension, frequency, vibration, universe. Individual bubble/big bang, and the collective bubbles/big bangs are two sides of the same coin. CREATION.

Big Jedi

Give it a friggin rest. Big Bang / GOD.... NO BIG BANG~ NO GOD~

Let's base all of our knowledge on Math that we don't fully understand, yet we can prove mathematically, Alternate realities are possible.... And Wormholes too!

Like we haven't screwed up our math in the past. And you can't live life based off numbers. And I know, I know.... Numbers don't lie~ NO THEY DON"T BUT PEOPLE DO AND IT"S EASY TO SCEW NUMBERS~

reply to post by TheNewRevolution


Sounds sort of like the big bang theory is a perpetual myth to me. Reality forms when enough people believe in it. If noone challenges the theory's rationality now, in two generations it will be a false god

There are theories now that our "big bang" is just one of billions that happen across an infinite cosmos and what we know as our Universe is really just one drop in the bucket in the entirety of the universe that may indeed be infinite. We can only see what light is close enough to reach our eyes. What lies beyond the confines of our big bang may be infinite other big bangs and an infinite void that we will never know or understand.

reply to post by Terminal1

I never was comfortable with a singularity big bang that expanded to everything we can see and can't see. We are still missing a thing or two about the very fundamentals of things like the weak force of gravity. Hell... we can't even really explain electricity and are just smart enough to use it to great advantage.

Good, and you shouldn't be, neither are the scientists searching for answers, which is the only reason we get any. Once the higgs is 100% confirmed, not 99%, we can start explaining a hell of a lot, like gravity, the first discovered force, yet we have zero understanding of it.

Until now.

A higgs field permeates the entire universe. when matter passes through this field, it meets resistance, like a boat moving through water. That resistance, offered by the higgs field, is what gives matter mass. Gravity will be solved thanks to the LHC and all of the scientists who feel the same way you do.

But here's the thing, you don't have to be comfortable with it for it to be true. AND it doesn't have to be true just because it fits.

We'll never know what was before, all we can work from is now, and the farthest back we can go is the big bang.

reply to post by rickymouse

Sounds sort of like the big bang theory is a perpetual myth to me. Reality forms when enough people believe in it. If noone challenges the theory's rationality now, in two generations it will be a false god

I guess the difference is, plenty of people are challenging it, and the big bang theory has actual, you know, evidence and crap, to back it up.

now, if scientists just said, this is how it was, no proff offered, shut up.... I'd agree

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by rickymouse

 

Sounds sort of like the big bang theory is a perpetual myth to me. Reality forms when enough people believe in it. If noone challenges the theory's rationality now, in two generations it will be a false god

I guess the difference is, plenty of people are challenging it, and the big bang theory has actual, you know, evidence and crap, to back it up.

now, if scientists just said, this is how it was, no proff offered, shut up.... I'd agree

The same evidence may be able to substantiate a better theory though. I can only say that the big bang theory should be stressed as ONLY a theory in school. I hear my grandchildren refer to it almost as a fact, this is very disturbing to me.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Knives4eyes

 

The fact that many galaxies spin in retrograde proves the BBT false just on elementary physics alone. The law of the conservation of angular momentum works in space just as it does on Earth.

Who is to say that what you describe as god in your religion did not use synchronicity to make everything work as it is. We are only looking at the 3D world and have no tools to see what is going on in the higher dimensions and what was going on. But on a philosophical level the big bang theory is very persistent with the disconnecting whole becoming smaller parts. The funny thing is that if you look at genesis I can symbolically see the same story. But my mind is a bit weird.

Richard Dawkins "Science ?... It works....Bitches"

So does chakras also but that is something Dawkins describe as Mumbo Jumbo. Lol. I wish I could be there when he has his first experiance of chakras and the whole idea of what is real and not is shifted in his mind because he is experiancing things his mind does not believe in. That would have been priceless to watch. . The WTF is going on moment..... hillarious.