Nairaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / Login / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 1257844 members, 1695977 topics. Date: Tuesday, 21 October 2014 at 05:46 PM

Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion - Religion (7) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion (2709 Views)

Atheism Is Another Religion / Top 10 Reasons Why Jesus Christ Is Not God / Say No To Religion! Science Is The Truth (1) (2) (3) (4)

(0) (1) (2) ... (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 2:51pm On Dec 23, 2012
Reyginus: Lololololol. What if the link is from google or wikipedia?

Errm, if not from internet, where the f*ck from? Can you stop this unadulterated nonsense? Or are you some sort of omnixx.x that has solved it all and has all the evidence in his cellar? Ah, your bible has the answers, yes? I believe that's on the internet as well, use google to find it

You're wasting time, show the link or own up to your folly. Or are you gathering tnt at the moment? You want me to accept a claim blindly? One that makes no sense no less? Do I look an xtian to you? Talking fires and snakes, living inside a whale, omnixx.x etc etc

I wish I could power my rocket ship with nonsense
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 2:59pm On Dec 23, 2012
@reyg

I need go step out. We'll continue this later cheesy
Kudos brah
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 3:18pm On Dec 23, 2012
wiegraf:

Errm, if not from internet, where the f*ck from? Can you stop this unadulterated nonsense? Or are you some sort of omnixx.x that has solved it all and has all the evidence in his cellar? Ah, your bible has the answers, yes? I believe that's on the internet as well, use google to find it

You're wasting time, show the link or own up to your folly. Or are you gathering tnt at the moment? You want me to accept a claim blindly? One that makes no sense no less? Do I look an xtian to you? Talking fires and snakes, living inside a whale, omnixx.x etc etc

I wish I could power my rocket ship with nonsense
Finally, we've gotten to the mesh. It's either it is Yes or No. If Yes, I will try my best to produce a link, if No, then...
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 3:19pm On Dec 23, 2012
wiegraf: @reyg

I need go step out. We'll continue this later cheesy
Kudos brah
Lololol.:-P
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Kay17: 4:54pm On Dec 23, 2012
Reyginus: Do you also hold the claim of an explosion will render your stand null?

I don't think the theory accommodates any explosion.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 5:02pm On Dec 23, 2012
Kay 17:

I don't think the theory accommodates any explosion.
Good. We are also close. If I show you that it accomodates will you accept? Yes or No?
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Kay17: 11:22pm On Dec 23, 2012
Pls do. Yes
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 12:11pm On Dec 24, 2012
Kay 17: Pls do. Yes
here we go
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
We certainly know that our universe exists, however, this knowledge alone has not satisfied mankind's quest for further understanding. Our curiosity has led us to question our place in this universe and furthermore, the place of the universe itself. Throughout time we have asked ourselves these questions: How did our universe begin? How old is our universe? How did matter come to exist? Obviously, these are not simple questions and throughout our brief history on this planet much time and effort has been spent looking for some clue. Yet, after all this energy has been expended, much of what we know is still only speculation.

We have, however, come a long way from the mystical beginnings of the study of cosmology and the origins of the universe. Through the understandings of modern science we have been able to provide firm theories for some of the answers we once called hypotheses. True to the nature of science, a majority of these answers have only led to more intriguing and complex questions. It seems to be inherent in our search for knowledge that questions will always continue to exist.

Although in this short chapter it will be impossible to tackle all of the questions concerning the creation of everything we know as reality, an attempt will be made to address certain fundamental questions of our being. It will be important to keep in mind that all of this information is constantly being questioned and reevaluated in order to understand the universe more clearly. For our purposes, through an examination of what is known about the Big Bang itself, the age of the universe, and the synthesis of the first atoms, we believe that we can begin to answer several of these key questions.

THE BIG BANG
One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

The origin of the Big Bang theory can be credited to Edwin Hubble. Hubble made the observation that the universe is continuously expanding. He discovered that a galaxys velocity is proportional to its distance. Galaxies that are twice as far from us move twice as fast. Another consequence is that the universe is expanding in every direction. This observation means that it has taken every galaxy the same amount of time to move from a common starting position to its current position. Just as the Big Bang provided for the foundation of the universe, Hubbles observations provided for the foundation of the Big Bang theory.

Since the Big Bang, the universe has been continuously expanding and, thus, there has been more and more distance between clusters of galaxies. This phenomenon of galaxies moving farther away from each other is known as the red shift. As light from distant galaxies approach earth there is an increase of space between earth and the galaxy, which leads to wavelengths being stretched.

In addition to the understanding of the velocity of galaxies emanating from a single point, there is further evidence for the Big Bang. In 1964, two astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, in an attempt to detect microwaves from outer space, inadvertently discovered a noise of extraterrestrial origin. The noise did not seem to emanate from one location but instead, it came from all directions at once. It became obvious that what they heard was radiation from the farthest reaches of the universe which had been left over from the Big Bang. This discovery of the radioactive aftermath of the initial explosion lent much credence to the Big Bang theory.

Even more recently, NASAs COBE satellite was able to detect cosmic microwaves eminating from the outer reaches of the universe. These microwaves were remarkably uniform which illustrated the homogenity of the early stages of the universe. However, the satillite also discovered that as the universe began to cool and was still expanding, small fluctuations began to exist due to temperature differences. These flucuatuations verified prior calculations of the possible cooling and development of the universe just fractions of a second after its creation. These fluctuations in the universe provided a more detailed description of the first moments after the Big Bang. They also helped to tell the story of the formation of galaxies which will be discussed in the next chapter.

The Big Bang theory provides a viable solution to one of the most pressing questions of all time. It is important to understand, however, that the theory itself is constantly being revised. As more observations are made and more research conducted, the Big Bang theory becomes more complete and our knowledge of the origins of the universe more substantial.

[font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font][color=#990000][/color]
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 10:11pm On Dec 24, 2012
Reyginus:
here we go
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/bigbang.htm
We certainly know that our universe exists, however, this knowledge alone has not satisfied mankind's quest for further understanding. Our curiosity has led us to question our place in this universe and furthermore, the place of the universe itself. Throughout time we have asked ourselves these questions: How did our universe begin? How old is our universe? How did matter come to exist? Obviously, these are not simple questions and throughout our brief history on this planet much time and effort has been spent looking for some clue. Yet, after all this energy has been expended, much of what we know is still only speculation.

We have, however, come a long way from the mystical beginnings of the study of cosmology and the origins of the universe. Through the understandings of modern science we have been able to provide firm theories for some of the answers we once called hypotheses. True to the nature of science, a majority of these answers have only led to more intriguing and complex questions. It seems to be inherent in our search for knowledge that questions will always continue to exist.

Although in this short chapter it will be impossible to tackle all of the questions concerning the creation of everything we know as reality, an attempt will be made to address certain fundamental questions of our being. It will be important to keep in mind that all of this information is constantly being questioned and reevaluated in order to understand the universe more clearly. For our purposes, through an examination of what is known about the Big Bang itself, the age of the universe, and the synthesis of the first atoms, we believe that we can begin to answer several of these key questions.

THE BIG BANG
One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.

About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.

The origin of the Big Bang theory can be credited to Edwin Hubble. Hubble made the observation that the universe is continuously expanding. He discovered that a galaxys velocity is proportional to its distance. Galaxies that are twice as far from us move twice as fast. Another consequence is that the universe is expanding in every direction. This observation means that it has taken every galaxy the same amount of time to move from a common starting position to its current position. Just as the Big Bang provided for the foundation of the universe, Hubbles observations provided for the foundation of the Big Bang theory.

Since the Big Bang, the universe has been continuously expanding and, thus, there has been more and more distance between clusters of galaxies. This phenomenon of galaxies moving farther away from each other is known as the red shift. As light from distant galaxies approach earth there is an increase of space between earth and the galaxy, which leads to wavelengths being stretched.

In addition to the understanding of the velocity of galaxies emanating from a single point, there is further evidence for the Big Bang. In 1964, two astronomers, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, in an attempt to detect microwaves from outer space, inadvertently discovered a noise of extraterrestrial origin. The noise did not seem to emanate from one location but instead, it came from all directions at once. It became obvious that what they heard was radiation from the farthest reaches of the universe which had been left over from the Big Bang. This discovery of the radioactive aftermath of the initial explosion lent much credence to the Big Bang theory.

Even more recently, NASAs COBE satellite was able to detect cosmic microwaves eminating from the outer reaches of the universe. These microwaves were remarkably uniform which illustrated the homogenity of the early stages of the universe. However, the satillite also discovered that as the universe began to cool and was still expanding, small fluctuations began to exist due to temperature differences. These flucuatuations verified prior calculations of the possible cooling and development of the universe just fractions of a second after its creation. These fluctuations in the universe provided a more detailed description of the first moments after the Big Bang. They also helped to tell the story of the formation of galaxies which will be discussed in the next chapter.

The Big Bang theory provides a viable solution to one of the most pressing questions of all time. It is important to understand, however, that the theory itself is constantly being revised. As more observations are made and more research conducted, the Big Bang theory becomes more complete and our knowledge of the origins of the universe more substantial.

[font=Lucida Sans Unicode][/font][color=#990000][/color]

Good, from a university no less. However, he is wrong about that bit. Or rather, he's just trying to simplify the description of the BB's processes and has redefined the word 'explosion' to fit that purpose

https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=explosion+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

- A violent and destructive shattering or blowing apart of something, as is caused by a bomb.
- A violent expansion in which energy is transmitted outward as a shock wave.

Look at his words bolded. He's made it clear that there was no traditional explosion taking place. At the very best, as he terms it, you could say there was an explosion of space. But that description would still be inaccurate, as we don't know there was an explosion of any kind. All we do know is there was an expansion of space. This space was uniformly filled with our version of energy, and this space has been expanding ever since. And unlike an explosion, there was not center point. It happened everywhere, at once.

If you're having problems with how BB worked, here's a personal description that may help. Note, this is not necessarily accurate. Think of entropy, now imagine a f*cktonne of energy being held together and being unable to escape the ultimate closed system. So tightly packed that this energy cannot do anything at all, except remain completely still. Now imagine this barrier is suddenly removed, entropy can now takes place, energy has now found space which it could move into, moving from hot to cold. All energy particles simultaneously move away from their neighbors. That's more like BB's expansion, that's more like what is meant by space is expanding uniformly in all directions.

Use your good friend google again to google "was the big bang an explosion". On my search (google searches are personalized, and I have various addblocks that can sometimes make urls unreadable) the only article that calls it an explosion is your link. Let me use a bing link for its brevity

http://www.bing.com/search?q=was+the+big+bang+an+explosion&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC

Even simply using your reasoning; matter to explode, spacetime to move in to, where? We have no proof there was any available. And you do know about something from nothing (though that may apply to only this universe), yes? Assuming these were available without any evidence is just that, assumptions, and superfluous as well. Science sticks to facts brah. No unfounded assumptions, I don't think you know what that means. Like I've said, you could even have sky daddy as a hypothesis, but don't expect anyone to indulge you without evidence. That's not how science works.

Random: I'm not sure why he credits Hubble other then for his popularity as well. The model was built by a priest and another scientist using GR as a base. Hubble's observations just confirmed their work, and of course he expanded on it.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 8:14am On Dec 25, 2012
wiegraf:

Good, from a university no less. However, he is wrong about that bit. Or rather, he's just trying to simplify the description of the BB's processes and has redefined the word 'explosion' to fit that purpose

https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=explosion+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

- A violent and destructive shattering or blowing apart of something, as is caused by a bomb.
- A violent expansion in which energy is transmitted outward as a shock wave.

Look at his words bolded. He's made it clear that there was no traditional explosion taking place. At the very best, as he terms it, you could say there was an explosion of space. But that description would still be inaccurate, as we don't know there was an explosion of any kind. All we do know is there was an expansion of space. This space was uniformly filled with our version of energy, and this space has been expanding ever since. And unlike an explosion, there was not center point. It happened everywhere, at once.

If you're having problems with how BB worked, here's a personal description that may help. Note, this is not necessarily accurate. Think of entropy, now imagine a f*cktonne of energy being held together and being unable to escape the ultimate closed system. So tightly packed that this energy cannot do anything at all, except remain completely still. Now imagine this barrier is suddenly removed, entropy can now takes place, energy has now found space which it could move into, moving from hot to cold. All energy particles simultaneously move away from their neighbors. That's more like BB's expansion, that's more like what is meant by space is expanding uniformly in all directions.

Use your good friend google again to google "was the big bang an explosion". On my search (google searches are personalized, and I have various addblocks that can sometimes make urls unreadable) the only article that calls it an explosion is your link. Let me use a bing link for its brevity

http://www.bing.com/search?q=was+the+big+bang+an+explosion&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC

Even simply using your reasoning; matter to explode, spacetime to move in to, where? We have no proof there was any available. And you do know about something from nothing (though that may apply to only this universe), yes? Assuming these were available without any evidence is just that, assumptions, and superfluous as well. Science sticks to facts brah. No unfounded assumptions, I don't think you know what that means. Like I've said, you could even have sky daddy as a hypothesis, but don't expect anyone to indulge you without evidence. That's not how science works.

Random: I'm not sure why he credits Hubble other then for his popularity as well. The model was built by a priest and another scientist using GR as a base. Hubble's observations just confirmed their work, and of course he expanded on it.



I don't quite get the point you are trying to make here. The issue was whether the singularity exploded before expanding, or expanded without any explosion.
He doesnt mean that no traditional explosion happened, but that the explosion was not nuclear. If their is no traditional explosion, then no explosion and that will contradict all the claims made.
On one hand you admit the claim is wrong, on the other hand you still use it to explain your stand. I don't know what you are up to.
Do you need some other link to confirm an explosion happened, or you agree there was one?
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Kay17: 3:16pm On Dec 25, 2012
I support wiegraf's stand. Cos the article's author is making a big mistake with his language.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 5:11pm On Dec 25, 2012
Kay 17: I support wiegraf's stand. Cos the article's author is making a big mistake with his language.
Lol. Kay you're just being disingenous.
Same language he got from the big b.ang theory you mean.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Kay17: 6:21pm On Dec 25, 2012
I read a lecture from Stephen Hawking, and he stressed that the big ban.g was an expansion several times.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 6:42pm On Dec 25, 2012
Kay 17: I read a lecture from Stephen Hawking, and he stressed that the big ban.g was an expansion several times.
Hawkings didn't propose the big bang theory. You should be reading Hubble or Lemaitre( Don't know If I spelt it correctly) not Hawkings.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 10:32pm On Dec 25, 2012
Reyginus: I don't quite get the point you are trying to make here. The issue was whether the singularity exploded before expanding, or expanded without any explosion.
He didnt mean that no traditional explosion happened, but that the explosion was not nuclear. If their is no traditional explosion, then no explosion and that will contradict all the claims made.
On one hand you admit the claim is wrong, on the other hand you still use it to explain your stand. I don't know what you are up to.
Do you need some other link to confirm an explosion happened, or you agree there was one?

WTF, where do you see him implying that he meant it simply was not a nuclear explosion? And you tell me you don't know what I'm up to Can you not read Or reason even He was very clear...

Reyginus: This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.


And you seem to think me trying to explain more clearly what happened is disingenuous, how? Or did I ever say in any shape or form there was no expansion? I seem to remember telling you that it is still expanding actually. No evidence for one. No reason to assume one. No explosion. If you think, or know, there was one then please show us how. Don't throw accusations around just because anony's shenanigans have made them vogue.

Would you like a dozen links that state it was not an explosion?

And you say scientists make unfounded claims?
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 10:50pm On Dec 25, 2012
wiegraf:
Or did I ever say in any shape or form there was no expansion?
Here we go again.
1. Traditional when used in the context of explosion implies nuclear explosion. Get it now. In plain language, what it is saying is, the explosion was not as a result of nuclear fission nor fussion.
2. Lol. You even failed to read down the wikipedia you quoted initially.
3. Lol. By the above, you mean what exactly?
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 11:25pm On Dec 25, 2012
Reyginus: Here we go again.
1. Traditional when used in the context of explosion implies nuclear explosion. Get it now. In plain language, what it is saying is, the explosion was not as a result of nuclear fission nor fussion.

THIS IS CONSPICUOUSLY FALSE. If you are deliberately lying, all I can say is have you no fear for your god? Explosion means KABOOM, BANG, BOOOOOM, like you see in all those movies. This includes nuclear explosions, plus the many, many rest. The BB is NOT in that list though, it is an EXPANSION, sort of like a balloon (but not really as well). Where the f**k do you get this from?


Reyginus:
2. Lol. You even failed to read down the wikipedia you quoted initially.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

wiki:
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model that describes the early development of the Universe. According to the Big Bang theory, the Universe was once in an extremely hot and dense state which expanded rapidly. This rapid expansion caused the Universe to cool and resulted in its present continuously expanding state.

wiki:
The Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points.

wiki:
Hubble's law has two possible explanations. Either we are at the center of an explosion of galaxies—which is untenable given the Copernican principle—or the Universe is uniformly expanding everywhere. This universal expansion was predicted from general relativity by Alexander Friedmann in 1922[35] and Georges Lemaître in 1927,[36] well before Hubble made his 1929 analysis and observations, and it remains the cornerstone of the Big Bang theory as developed by Friedmann, Lemaître, Robertson, and Walker.

wiki:
Radiation from the Big Bang was demonstrably warmer at earlier times throughout the Universe. Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the Universe is experiencing a metric expansion, and excludes the possibility that we are near the unique center of an explosion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

wiki:
The metric expansion of space is the increase of the distance between two distant parts of the universe with time. It is an intrinsic expansion whereby the scale of space itself is changed. That is, a metric expansion is defined by an increase in distance between parts of the universe even without those parts "moving" anywhere. This is not the same as any usual concept of motion, or any kind of expansion of objects "outward" into other "preexisting" space, or any kind of explosion of matter which is commonly experienced on earth.

You best be trollin'


Reyginus:
3. Lol. By the above, you mean what exactly?

Dunno what you mean here. Elaborate.
Edit: oh you mean about the unfounded claim? You seem intent on adding explosion to the mix when there's clearly no reason to. The explosion you speak of is an unfounded claim.



Btw, I indulge you on this point simply because if I leave, you'll probably claim some sort of miraculous victory. While farcical I may be too immature to let that happen, as sheeple would probably dream up a victory as well. But this was settled a looooong time ago.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Kay17: 11:36pm On Dec 25, 2012
Reyginus: Hawkings didn't propose the big bang theory. You should be reading Hubble or Lemaitre( Don't know If I spelt it correctly) not Hawkings.

Hawkings is one of the biggest big ban.g proponets.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 8:18am On Dec 26, 2012
wiegraf:

THIS IS CONSPICUOUSLY FALSE. If you are deliberately lying, all I can say is have you no fear for your god? Explosion means KABOOM, BANG, BOOOOOM, like you see in all those movies. This includes nuclear explosions, plus the many, many rest. The BB is NOT in that list though, it is an EXPANSION, sort of like a balloon (but not really as well). Where the f**k do you get this from?




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang









http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space



You best be trollin'




Dunno what you mean here. Elaborate.
Edit: oh you mean about the unfounded claim? You seem intent on adding explosion to the mix when there's clearly no reason to. The explosion you speak of is an unfounded claim.



Btw, I indulge you on this point simply because if I leave, you'll probably claim some sort of miraculous victory. While farcical I may be too immature to let that happen, as sheeple would probably dream up a victory as well. But this was settled a looooong time ago.
lol.
1. If slam means Boom, should tell you something. Can a bang ever mean an expansion? Lol. Their is no way there can be a 'big expansion'. Wiegraf think. You can easily derive its meaning from the words used.
Must an explosion be nuclear? SMH.
3. Another link.science.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/universe/origins-universe-article/
The most popular theory of our universe's origin
centers on a cosmic cataclysm unmatched in all of
history—the big force. Before the big bang, scientists believe, the entire
vastness of the observable universe, including all
of its matter and radiation, was compressed into
a hot, dense mass just a few millimeters across.
This nearly incomprehensible state is theorized to
have existed for just a fraction of the first second of time. Big bang proponents suggest that some 10 billion
to 20 billion years ago, a massive blast allowed all
the universe's known matter and energy—even
space and time themselves—to spring from some
ancient and unknown type of energy. The theory maintains that, in the instant—a
trillion-trillionth of a second—after the big bang,
the universe expanded with incomprehensible
speed from its pebble-size origin to astronomical
scope. Expansion has apparently continued, but
much more slowly, over the ensuing billions of years. Scientists can't be sure exactly how the universe
evolved after the big bang. Many believe that as
time passed and matter cooled, more diverse
kinds of atoms began to form, and they
eventually condensed into the stars and galaxies
of our present universe.
3. In your words:' Or did I ever say in any shape or form there was no explosion?'. What do you mean?
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 8:32am On Dec 26, 2012
Kay 17:

Hawkings is one of the biggest big ban.g proponets.
Proponent or not, his explanation must relate with the original theory. Except he's developing a whole new theory.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Kay17: 10:30am On Dec 26, 2012
At least both wiegraf and I have links that its an expansion. One of your links compromises you. A key big ban.g theorist says its an expansion. What else do you want.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 11:06am On Dec 26, 2012
Kay 17: At least both wiegraf and I have links that its an expansion. One of your links compromises you. A key big ban.g theorist says its an expansion. What else do you want.
Lol. My link pointed to an explosion before the expansion.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Kay17: 1:20pm On Dec 26, 2012
In my view, your link is wrong.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 2:24pm On Dec 26, 2012
This genius named it the big b.ang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

He meant it as insulting, though he may claim otherwise. He was also responsible for the beoing 747 whipped up by a hurricane comment iirc. Wtf he insisted on being a scientist for is beyond me. 4king saboteur. Lemaitre was religious no? A priest even, but he was an excellent scientist.

Now, the big b.ang is a nice, sensationalist title that catches the imagination of the ordinary man, that is all. That does not mean there was an explosion, at all.
Then you say think. Simple thinking will point out glaringly there was no explosion if you're a little familiar with the concepts.

So, ok. I suppose all misnomers aren't wrong then. Like pencil lead really is lead. Greenland really is green. All blackboards are black. Etc etc... Enjoy from google, a nice long list of similarly aptly named items

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misnomer

For every article, all popular, you get calling BB an explosion I'll get at least 5 calling it an expansion, and another 5 going out of their way to explain why it isn't an explosion.


This isn't a science article per se, it's dumbed down but it should do fine. It deals with other quibbles you have with the big ba.ng as well (btw, I don't think matter formed as quickly as he indicates, all conditions were now met except it was just too hot for a while, but I'm not so sure (I'm not the expert, he is). Either ways it's supposed to be a dumbed down article so he probably stated it like that for the sake of simplicity, or I'm wrong. That's not the main issue anyhow)

http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/2006/07/big-bang-common-misconceptions.html?m=1

You guys made him angry with your nonsense. Stop it




Ps: if you still have a problem figuring this out, think of it as matter is shrinking. I'm no pro, but from where I'm sitting you could actually write math for that and it would do, even if silly. Just like you could still write math that makes the earth the centre of the universe, though this example is particularly silly
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 2:51pm On Dec 26, 2012
Kay 17: In my view, your link is wrong.
Lol. How do you mean? Do you considered the source at all.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 3:02pm On Dec 26, 2012
wiegraf: This genius named it the big b.ang

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

He meant it as insulting, though he may claim otherwise. He was also responsible for the beoing 747 whipped up by a hurricane comment iirc. Wtf he insisted on being a scientist for is beyond me. 4king saboteur. Lemaitre was religious no? A priest even, but he was an excellent scientist.

Now, the big b.ang is a nice, sensationalist title that catches the imagination of the ordinary man, that is all. That does not mean there was an explosion, at all.
Then you say think. Simple thinking will point out glaringly there was no explosion if you're a little familiar with the concepts.

So, ok. I suppose all misnomers aren't wrong then. Like pencil lead really is lead. Greenland really is green. All blackboards are black. Etc etc... Enjoy from google, a nice long list of similarly aptly named items

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misnomer

For every article, all popular, you get calling BB an explosion I'll get at least 5 calling it an expansion, and another 5 going out of their way to explain why it isn't an explosion.


This isn't a science article per se, it's dumbed down but it should do fine. It deals with other quibbles you have with the big ba.ng as well (btw, I don't think matter formed as quickly as he indicates, all conditions were now met except it was just too hot for a while, but I'm not so sure (I'm not the expert, he is). Either ways it's supposed to be a dumbed down article so he probably stated it like that for the sake of simplicity, or I'm wrong. That's not the main issue anyhow)

http://angryastronomer.blogspot.com/2006/07/big-bang-common-misconceptions.html?m=1

You guys made him angry with your nonsense. Stop it




Ps: if you still have a problem figuring this out, think of it as matter is shrinking. I'm no pro, but from where I'm sitting you could actually write math for that and it would do, even if silly. Just like you could still write math that makes the earth the centre of the universe, though this example is particularly silly
lol. Wiegraf, the way you talk.
Okay. Our problem now is the source. I wonder whether science is confused or like philosophy, whose adherents would never agree to a particular definition.
Looking how far we've come, it seems the big b.ang theory has being treated like a philosophical knowledge, which is not supposed to be so.
It has now being twisted even beyond what the propounders would have it to mean.
I think is time we look at it from the linguistic angle.
Please be honest.
What do you understand by the collocation, 'big bang'?
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 3:30pm On Dec 26, 2012
Reyginus: lol. Wiegraf, the way you talk.
Okay. Our problem now is the source. I wonder whether science is confused or like philosophy, whose adherents would never agree to a particular definition.
Looking how far we've come, it seems the big b.ang theory has being treated like a philosophical knowledge, which is not supposed to be so.
It has now being twisted even beyond what the propounders would have it to mean.
I think is time we look at it from the linguistic angle.
Please be honest.
What do you understand by the collocation, 'big bang'?

I think it's a misnomer, like thousands of very reputable scientists have pointed out. Actually, like ALL scientists point out, except in some dumbed down articles that are meant to be accessible. Again, the big b.ang is just a flashy way to describe the process, nothing more. It doesn't sound as nice as the big expansion, yes? Is the universe getting fatter? Those are the kind of inane questions we would have faced, see?


This is tedious now brah. You are now clearly trollin'
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 6:14pm On Dec 26, 2012
wiegraf:

I think it's a misnomer, like thousands of very reputable scientists have pointed out. Actually, like ALL scientists point out, except in some dumbed down articles that are meant to be accessible. Again, the big b.ang is just a flashy way to describe the process, nothing more. It doesn't sound as nice as the big expansion, yes? Is the universe getting fatter? Those are the kind of inane questions we would have faced, see?


This is tedious now brah. You are now clearly trollin'

Clearly trolling? I don't troll.
If a misnomer as you claimed, it will make all scientists who have been using it all this while unintelligent.
I don't think so. It's deliberate.
What process are we talking about here?
Accept the fact.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 7:03pm On Dec 26, 2012
Reyginus:
Clearly trolling? I don't troll.
If a misnomer as you claimed, it will make all scientists who have been using it all this while unintelligent.
I don't think so. It's deliberate.
What process are we talking about here?
Accept the fact.

In what universe does it make them unintelligent? Does calling greenland 'greenland' make you unintelligent? What are you on about bros? Mayhaps you think guinea pigs are pigs, or that hot dogs are made from dog meat as well? Have you launched all your critical thinking into space?

Even the origin of the term sheds some light on its inaccuracy. Some astronomer trying to discredit the BB came up with the title. He was consciously trying to make the process accessible, and many think disparage it as well (including me but he claims not so). Unwittingly, it probably aided its appeal to laymen interested in science but uninterested with the details.

ALL of science agrees it has naught to say about any explosions, it has little to say about the very earliest stages of the process even. All it's about is the early stages (after the very beginning, where there's just not enough data to draw up reasonable conclusions) of the EXPANSION that took place, a process that is still occurring today. No explosions, and no reason whatsoever to assume so (again, were was the matter, or spacetime? Etc).

Accept facts? Like all the articles and reasoning presented to you so far? Or authorities like stephen hawking going to pains to describe it as an expansion, just like ALL of science does? Or the fact that the big b.ang is a term used just to make it more accessible, yes?

And you say atheists don't think, and accept unfounded claims from scientists. Yet here you are brazenly making one. *smh* So yes, I hope you're trolling.


Heh heh
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 7:12pm On Dec 26, 2012
wiegraf:

In what universe does it make them unintelligent? Does calling greenland 'greenland' make you unintelligent? What are you on about bros? Mayhaps you think guinea pigs are pigs, or that hot dogs are made from dog meat as well? Have you launched all your critical thinking into space?

Even the origin of the term sheds some light on its inaccuracy. Some astronomer trying to discredit the BB came up with the title. He was consciously trying to make the process accessible, and many think disparage it as well (including me but he claims not so). Unwittingly, it probably aided its appeal to laymen interested in science but uninterested with the details.

ALL of science agrees it has naught to say about any explosions, it has little to say about the very earliest stages of the process even. All it's about is the early stages (after the very beginning, where there's just not enough data to draw up reasonable conclusions) of the EXPANSION that took place, a process that is still occurring today. No explosions, and no reason whatsoever to assume so (again, were was the matter, or spacetime? Etc).

Accept facts? Like all the articles and reasoning presented to you so far? Or authorities like stephen hawking going to pains to describe it as an expansion, just like ALL of science does? Or the fact that the big b.ang is a term used just to make it more accessible, yes?

And you say atheists don't think, and accept unfounded claims from scientists. Yet here you are brazenly making one. *smh* So yes, I hope you're trolling.


Heh heh
All this is unnecessary. Just tell me the literal meaning of the collocation 'big bang'? Is that too much to ask.
And why would anybody, a scientist for that, use an erroneous word to define anything? Is it that he's scarce of words or what?
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by wiegraf: 7:21pm On Dec 26, 2012
Reyginus: All this is unnecessary. Just tell me the literal meaning of the collocation 'big bang'? Is that too much to ask.
And why would anybody, a scientist for that, use an erroneous word to define anything? Is it that he's scarce of words or what?

You're asking why misnomers in general That's low. Frankly even my procatinating a$$ does not have that much time to burn.

I've answered both questions (ie, I've explained why this particular misnomer), a lot of times no less. In fact in the post you quote, I clearly state the origins of the term. And how many times have given definitions or descriptions of the process so far? Literal meanings? What nonsense, like you've never come across a misnomer before.

I'll quote an older post from elsewhere just for you, an excerpt from a book.
Re: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion by Reyginus(m): 7:38pm On Dec 26, 2012
wiegraf:

You're asking why misnomers in general That's low. Frankly even my procatinating a$$ does not have that much time to burn.

I've answered both questions (ie, I've explained why this particular misnomer), a lot of times no less. In fact in the post you quote, I clearly state the origins of the term. And how many times have given definitions or descriptions of the process so far? Literal meanings? What nonsense, like you've never come across a misnomer before.

I'll quote an older post from elsewhere just for you, an excerpt from a book.
I've never come across a situation where men who claim to be learned, misuse a word for decades.
Let's forget about it being a misnomer for now.
You what do you say? What does it mean to you?

(0) (1) (2) ... (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply)

Does The Bible Say It Is WRONG To Give Or Take BRIBE? / A Deeper Life Woman End Up In Hell For Using A Rubber Thread / Gossip And Hypocrisy: Which Is The Hardest Sin To Avoid

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2014 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See Nairalist and How To Advertise. 178
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.