Do You Accept The Big Bang Theory?

[Jumbo]

So let's get back on topic. Of course, part of that topic would logically be the "whys" behind acceptance of the BB or lack thereof, and if that includes religious beliefs, it's valid to mention them. Getting into extended OT tangents is never recommended in serious discussion threads, but sometimes it happens and sometimes generates very interesting conservation. As a mod, I just have to make my calls on such as I see them, knowing the forum and having some experience in these matters.

[grhqofb5]

I believe in the BB simply because it makes sense on a very base line level. You essentially have a pinhead that weighs roughly a googolplex x googolplex metric tons, which exploded like 13.7 billion years ago. Before this point, there was nothing around it. But after it exploded (guess there was no "before" so to speak) our universe starting expanding like a giant balloon, pushing the nothingness aside at an ever accelerating rate (apparantly the first nanosecond of this process included like a googolplex different phases, so stuff happened quickly, I mean not like my wife's been pregnant for 2 straight years and it's our first romantic opportunity type quick, but still pretty quick). So then after that, a googolplex different atoms started fusing together, creating a googolplex planets (but not an infinte number because of that paradox thing). All the while the universe keeps pushing the surrounding nothingness further back (it's not "entering" the nothingness because there's nothing to enter). And if I had a really fast space ship I could cruise to the edge of this process and see precisely what this nothingness on the other side looks like (I'm thinking southern Queen Anne's County).

[Jumbo]

And here I thought it was safe to assume that this hadn't become another alexey religion thread....

I'm going to comment on this and how it applies to what I've observing in "these" threads.

As to what this thread (or others) "becomes", it takes more than one to really make it so. But if an intent that is regarded as a problem by a mod keeps surfacing by any member, action can be taken just as what happened when zoony closed alexy's other thread. alexy's behaviors, as is anyone's, are noted by staff (certainly me) and they make determinations.

Personally, I hate taking mod actions when the "regular" rules aren't being broken in the matter, even over time, and I don't see alexy breaking rules or even "behaving" poorly. He usually seems pretty polite in his posting (including PMs). If we were to take thread-closing or banning actions just over someone having a consistent agenda, being regularly argumentative, or having an unpopular position that appeals only to a very small minority and annoys a large majority, we'd be saying goodbye to some very well known posters and a lot of good conversation..

Yet any forum conduct regarded as continually lowering the quality of discourse here (in serious threads) can fall under the wide latitude of rules 18 or 12 where basically any mod can ban anyone they want given appropriate context. I try never to let the popularity or lack thereof, based on any POV of any member, be a factor.

I have a feeling this is the fate of many science threads for the foreseeable future.

Neither you, nor other members interested in science are powerless here, all take responsibility for their choices and the consequences (like extending unwanted dialogue or continuing to feed a dissatisfying experience). And no single poster can dominate such a topic area unless he gets a lot of help. And at the point where any member attempts such dominance in a manner it becomes eligible under rule 12 or 18, action would be taken, and this still could be applied to alexy if he is ever decided to fit such. In my book, he , at this point, is little different than many of our political posters in actual rule-oriented behavior. In fact, we have some stand-out long timers who do all the critically cited behaviors alexy has been charged with by other posters, but to a much greater degree and often with less friendly conduct, and they remain safe.

<edit>

(I will point out that I ignored alexey's second post in this thread (about stone age religoins), his third (a response to ASF), and only responded when he saw fit to make a comment on a point that I made in an effort to avoid completely derailing this thread.) Reading you over the years, and knowing the differnce between when you're getting "wound-up" and when you're not, I think those were good choices.

But make no mistake, alexy, my eye is on you, and I appreciated your PM. The big thing for you would be to start less threads of such similar aroma, which I think zoony meant when he tole you to "chill for awhile." I even hesitate at that, since long ago it used to be that some political whackos could start 5 threads a day every day pushing their extreme agendas (and they did---two most infamously). But I began shutting that action down and now we do it more often under rule 18 and seeking the best discussion forum we can have. So we can and will do it, I just want it to be for the right reasons and after giving enough slack and warnings. Some past posters who finally got the horns were given excessive slack and too many warnings (and still whine somewhere on the net about finally being booted). We're a little different now.

[GibbsFactor]

There was nothing prior to the Big Bang. Time and space didn't exist.

Cosmogony.

Where science ends and philosophy begins. Where how the universe works stops being the question and what made it replaces it.

[grhqofb5]

Ok, one more question: Is the universe expanding at the speed of light? If so, then should all light that was present at the big bang pretty much be at the edge of the universe? If not, then should light eventually catch up with the expansion of the universe?

[GibbsFactor]

Ok, one more question: Is the universe expanding at the speed of light? If so, then should all light that was present at the big bang pretty much be at the edge of the universe? If not, then should light eventually catch up with the expansion of the universe?

That static you hear when you turn to a radio channel with no station, sound of particles radiating from the big bang.

And all particles travel at the speed of light I believe.

[Corcaigh]

I believe in the BB simply because it makes sense on a very base line level. You essentially have a pinhead that weighs roughly a googolplex x googolplex metric tons, which exploded like 13.7 billion years ago. Before this point, there was nothing around it. But after it exploded (guess there was no "before" so to speak) our universe starting expanding like a giant balloon, pushing the nothingness aside at an ever accelerating rate (apparantly the first nanosecond of this process included like a googolplex different phases, so stuff happened quickly, I mean not like my wife's been pregnant for 2 straight years and it's our first romantic opportunity type quick, but still pretty quick). So then after that, a googolplex different atoms started fusing together, creating a googolplex planets (but not an infinte number because of that paradox thing). All the while the universe keeps pushing the surrounding nothingness further back (it's not "entering" the nothingness because there's nothing to enter). And if I had a really fast space ship I could cruise to the edge of this process and see precisely what this nothingness on the other side looks like (I'm thinking southern Queen Anne's County).

The Big Bang Theory explains what happened regarding the early Universe. There is a tremendous body of evidence that it is correct and it has been tested in many areas. But it has nothing to say about the initial conditions or indeed what was there "before". Some version of the Big Bang Theory is almost certain to be correct, but I don't think there's agreement on the initial conditions and how they came to be.

If you want to believe that a supreme being loaded the cannon and lit the fuse, I don't think science has anything to say on the matter.

[GibbsFactor]

The Big Bang Theory explains what happened regarding the early Universe. There is tremendous body evidence that it is correct and it has been tested in many areas. But it has nothing to say about the initial conditions or indeed what was there "before". Some version of the Big Bang Theory is almost certain to be correct, but I don't think there's agreement on the initial conditions and how they came to be.

If you want to beleive that a supreme being loaded the cannon and lit the fuse, I don't think science has anything to say on the manner.

To frame the above as a question... What happened before and during the first planck time?

[grhqofb5]

The Big Bang Theory explains what happened regarding the early Universe. There is a tremendous body of evidence that it is correct and it has been tested in many areas. But it has nothing to say about the initial conditions or indeed what was there "before". Some version of the Big Bang Theory is almost certain to be correct, but I don't think there's agreement on the initial conditions and how they came to be.

If you want to believe that a supreme being loaded the cannon and lit the fuse, I don't think science has anything to say on the matter.

Don't get me wrong, I really do believe in the big bang. It just have a difficult time wrapping my head around the concept that it was the "beginning," and for that matter, that there was a beginning. Some in this thread suggest that matter and time didn't exist prior to the big bang. Which begs the question, how could there just be nothing.

[Corcaigh]

Don't get me wrong, I really do believe in the big bang. It just have a difficult time wrapping my head around the concept that it was the "beginning," and for that matter, that there was a beginning. Some in this thread suggest that matter and time didn't exist prior to the big bang. Which begs the question, how could there just be nothing.

Honestly, I find the answers on that subject that you'd get from a theoretical physicist about as interesting as what you'd get from a philosopher or religious person. i.e. not at all.

[grhqofb5]

Honestly, I find the answers on that subject that you'd get from a theoretical physicist about as interesting as what you'd get from a philosopher or religious person. i.e. not at all.

Right. The way I see it, despite all knowledge we've acquired as a society, there's a pretty good chance we still don't know ****. And that's not meant to be insulting.

[mistertim]

And all particles travel at the speed of light I believe.

I think the only ones that travel at the speed of light are gauge bosons: photons, gluons, and (theoretically) gravitons.

[China]

This Subterranean Telescope May Have Just Seen Humanity's First Cosmic Neutrino

Catching a glimpse of even regular neutrinos—low-energy particles generated in the atmosphere—is difficult enough, but spotting a "cosmic neutrino" left over from the Big Bang has been downright impossible. That is until this cubic kilometer buried under Antartica's frozen wastes started looking.

Known as the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, this $279 million telescope is located under the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station in Antarctica. Since its completion in 2010, IceCube has been searching for evidence of the cosmic neutrino via an array of thousands of sensors hung in cascading lines under the ice.

Just as its predecessor, the Antarctic Muon And Neutrino Detector Array (AMANDA), did, IceCube consists of spherical optical sensors called Digital Optical Modules (DOMs), each with a photomultiplier tube (PMT). In all, 86 strings containing 60 DOMs apiece and a total of 5,160 PMTs have been hung a depths ranging from 1,450 to 2,450 meters. IceCube researchers leveraged a unique hot water drill to quickly bore through the ice when installing the array.

When a weakly-interacting neutrino does manage to strike the nucleus of an atom in the ice, the resulting energy release creates a brief flash that is picked up by the DOM and transmitted to a data collection station on the surface. The system detects roughly 100,000 neutrino strikes annually but, until last month, all of them were of the atmospheric variety. In April, IceCube detected a pair of strikes—nicknamed Bert and Ernie—with energy signatures in the TeV range, suggesting an extraterrestrial origin. Since then, the system has spotted an additional 26 potential cosmic neutrino strikes.

Click on the link for the full article

[Koolblue13]

Right. The way I see it, despite all knowledge we've acquired as a society, there's a pretty good chance we still don't know ****. And that's not meant to be insulting.

That's pretty much where I'm at. A "theory" like evolution I can take as fact without even a doubt. I guess the BBT makes sense, but I doubt it.

[jnhay]

I tend to just say, "Okay, I guess" to questions like these. I'm not, along with most people, knowledgeable or interested enough to give a strong argument for or against. But I'm definitely not stupid enough to criticize people's opinions on the topic either way.

[Bang]

My wife does.

heh, heh, heh..

~heh

[Predicto]

I accept the Big Bang theory as the best scientific theory currently available, nothing more and nothing less. I am not scientifically literate enough to critique it honestly. My formal study of physics ended in high school, and this stuff is beyond my ken.

[HOF44]

I believe the Big Bang happened. As to it being the start of the universe I don't think so. I'm a brane theory guy personally.

[CRobi21]

No.

That show ****ing sucks.

[CrabR]

My wife does.

heh, heh, heh..

~heh

LOL that was a good one

[MartinC]

There is an abundance of evidence to support the big bang theory to the point where its difficult to create a sensible alternative based on scientific method.

1. The Universe is expanding suggesting that planets and galaxies are moving away from their source and one time were closer together. The rate of expansion is such that galaxies further away from us are moving away faster proportional to their distance from us. If we look backwards in time we see the Universe shrink.

2. The presence of large quantities of matter throughout the Universe such as helium and other matters created by nuclear fusion and extreme temperatures such as would have occurred during the big bang.

3. Cosmic background radiation. I dont understand all the science here but the kind of back ground radiation observed is EXACTLY the kind the modelling of the big bang theory would require to exist.

The Big Bang Theory is a theory - but its one supported by some very very compelling evidence (in very stark contrast to some other creation theories). I accept it as fact. What science does not tell us yet is what existed before the Big Bang. The work going on at CERN with the LHC and other research is constantly moving our knowledge of the Universe forwards and at some point I feel sure we will have information and testable theories of what existed before the Big Bang and the conditions immediately prior to it.

[elkabong82]

It's declined a bit, but still an acceptable show.

[grhqofb5]

So, is there another theory other than the big bang that has any scientific credence? Big bang just leaves too many unanswered questions. From the layman:

(1) Can matter be infinitely small, yet still hold the same weight? I.E. how small must the "point" have been? What caused it to be a certain size? Why wasn't it smaller? Was there a rule of physics preventing it from being smaller?

(2) If the universe is expanding at the speed of light, how could it ever stop? If there is nothing on the "outside" of the universe to provide resistance, won't the expansion continue infinitely? It's not like there is some cosmic wall out there that will be reached at 15 billion years.

[nonniey]

Futurama's theory is tha same as mine - I had it first though (Nobel prize please). Big Bang followed by expansion, followed by contraction, followed by Big Bang. This explains dejavu every thing gets repeated including our lives.

[GhostofSparta]

I came into this thread expecting 2 things:

-Snarky comments about the show

-A smartass comment from Bang

Glad to see I wasn't let down.