Area_boy:

no worries mate. I do my best to explain as little as makes sense to me. alfaman is bent on twisting everything on its head

Heh heh...
I tire. Creating issues where there are non

And here we have all the I too KNOW's trying to convince alfamann on what they never saw happen nor which any of them out of there own experiments and intense study were able to confirm...........

What ever the scientists who are bent on belÍeving there is no God feeds them with garbage like the bÍg bang they unhesitatingly accept it and paste them here...............

Kudos to all big bang supporters.......

.

@Areaboy.
1. First of all, I made no assumption. Those are the implications of the big bang theory. The moment a statement like this is made:'So to answer your question there, The law of
thermodynamics only apply inside that grapefruit of a baby universe and "everything" else isn't
included' you are already buying to the idea of isolating the law of thermodynamics. Another thing is, that a universe is a 'baby universe' is a logical contradiction. More like calling a child a baby man when all the qualities of a man are yet to be made evident in the child.
Now, I'm not getting you. The singularity cannot even be all there is and still has the tendency to expand. I don't know if you get me. It is a logical contradiction for anything to be all there is and still expanding. The two cannot go together.
I'd like to correct this assumption. Yeah, I think it is: 'you have already concluded
there must be something out there before you
even start your analysis'. From this point, I begin wonder if you are actually following. I tried to follow your argument of a multiverse.
What I'm only saying is that we wouldn't have payed more attention to the analyses of the materials outside our universe if not for your multiverse.
And my question still stands.
What lies inbetween two universes? Be brief and to the point.
2. To be sincere with you, I don't understand how the argument you are replying to amounts to :"If you see a
wrist watch washed up on the beach that no
one has ever seen before, the only logical
conclusion is that someone or something made it.
hence someone must have made/created humans
too". Their is no correlation. Not at all.
And to suggest we don't boundaries to explain the big bang also deviates from the question. The question now is, how can anything be expanding into nothing? Please be brief.
3. 'Simple, space is expanding but the galaxies
remain the same with respect to each other in
this example. Does it make any sense now?'.
Not yet. You know why this example will not work. We're are not about galaxies here. Our universe, from a galaxy, is the subject in this case. I sense you substituted space to cover the position of the universe. Lol. For the sake of clarity, this spaces that you claim expand are found where? Inside or outside their respective universes?
Above all, I'm still trying to figure out how anything can be said to be expanding when it is not expanding to somethin. Na wa o.

ijawkid: And here we have all the I too KNOW's trying to convince alfamann on what they never saw happen nor which any of them out of there own experiments and intense study were able to confirm...........

What ever the scientists who are bent on belÍeving there is no God feeds them with garbage like the bÍg bang they unhesitatingly accept it and paste them here...............

Kudos to all big bang supporters.......

Lol. You've not seen anything yet. U no sabi our piple again?

ijawkid: And here we have all the I too KNOW's trying to convince alfamann on what they never saw happen nor which any of them out of there own experiments and intense study were able to confirm...........

What ever the scientists who are bent on belÍeving there is no God feeds them with garbage like the bÍg bang they unhesitatingly accept it and paste them here...............

Kudos to all big bang supporters.......

you are a fanny.

Search: Father George lemaitre on google

wiegraf:

It is flawed. The difference, in case you missed it, is that the forces/whatever called dark matter/energy EXIST, it's their nature that is up for debate. Their effects have been observed in various situations.

You just sound like a religious fanatic who cannot think outside the bible because that would make his world collapse. You just can't think outside the existing "laws of physics" that govern some parts of our world. The bolded is just an extraordinary claim to make. You very well know that they exist if and only if the laws of motion were flawless and constant. We have already shown the flaws in these laws within our own world. Also note that high gravity affects these laws as to make them useless.

wiegraf: Your analogy is poor all round, but it would be more accurate if you said that Adamu were pointing out (not supposing) the existence of a theft, or better yet, the bag being missing, simple. Not the existence of a thief and all the other jara you feel inclined to add. You are blatantly misrepresenting the situation. You even imply here @areaboy claimed to know what DM is when he very clearly did not.

The bag wasn't were it was supposed to be it, assuming something moved the bag is perfectly reasonable, no? So they calculate, it moved it by so so metres, at so so time, etc etc. They can now extrapolate properties, but what is the something that actually moved the bag? Nobody claims to know. Maybe some good guesses, but definitely no smoking gun.

Really, what do you want them to do? Claim the bag is where it's supposed to be? Or do you expect them to toss all physical laws we know of through the window and make up some 'flying birds' when simpler options in need of investigation are available? You do understand how Occam's razor works, I hope? And even if humoring you, why do you have a problem with their 'flying birds' yet have no problem coming up with your own 'flying bird', eg other universes? That's more like a 'flying whale' sef.

Even if your claim is the bag shouldn't have been there in the first place (though I do not think you have any evidence, logical or otherwise, to back that up), they're method of inquiry is justifiable; prioritize the simpler, more likely candidates. Simple. Their stance is perfectly reasonable and, again, other options are being investigated. BB just happens to be (justifiably) the most likely to most experts.

@ the bolded. Yes, perfectly reasonable but completely wrong. It is a reasonable incompetence. It is a theory that makes reasonable sense but is in reality a complete nonsense.

Yes, I expect them to think outside the laws and consider the possibility that those laws may not apply in such circumstances. I expect them to acknowledge that things in the cosmos may not be as simple as they think.

I very much understand Occam's razor but am more inclined to the school of thought of Walter Chatton which considers more possibilities where existing theories do not provide adequate answers.

We can discuss multiverse in another thread if you want. Let us keep this on the Big Bang. But just note that even if the big bang were to be correct, the only possible conclusion (apart from the "we are expanding into nothingness" nonsense) is that we are in a multiverse. Even if we are the only universe inside it, it is still a multiverse. A single planet solar system is still a solar system. Mind you, multiverse does not necessariry mean there was a big bang. If you want to continue this multiverse one, please open a fresh thread.

wiegraf: The green does not follow the red. It is either blatant nonsense that makes no sense, or it makes some sense. It is one or the other, they are mutually exclusive. Make up your mind and choose one.

See my paragraph above about reasonable nonsense.

wiegraf: Note, and I'm not sure why I have to point this out, that even if what you're trying to say here is that it makes sense in some situations but it's rubbish in others (to you), that does not mean it is complete nonsense, yes? As you yourself just admitted it makes sense in some situations, no? Do you now understand?

The bolded is exactly what I was trying to say.
Again see above paragrahp on reasonable incompetence.

wiegraf: EDIT: Btw, the bolded, who exactly are 'we'?

Humans.

wiegraf: Good, so now you're (hopefully) making yourself clear, despite the double talk and misleading title. You think it's complete nonsense, cool.

I think you're very clearly wrong. It is a perfectly justifiable stance for reasons @area, among others, has highlighted. Not the most accurate or complete, but viable? Definitely.



You probably have a poor grasp of the scientific method.

I agree with you on the bolded.

And I don't have a poor grasp of the method. I just disagree with it.

Area_boy:

you are a fanny.

Search: Father George lemaitre on google

Nice smackdown.

Further cements my stance that Big Bang has religion in its foundation and its explication. The more I read about it, the more I am conviced it is a religious science based on fallacious inventions.

Area_boy:

no worries mate. I do my best to explain as little as makes sense to me. alfaman is bent on twisting everything on its head

No. I am bent on the path of the truth.

Reyginus: @Areaboy.
1. First of all, I made no assumption. Those are the implications of the big bang theory. The moment a statement like this is made:'So to answer your question there, The law of
thermodynamics only apply inside that grapefruit of a baby universe and "everything" else isn't
included' you are already buying to the idea of isolating the law of thermodynamics. Another thing is, that a universe is a 'baby universe' is a logical contradiction. More like calling a child a baby man when all the qualities of a man are yet to be made evident in the child.
Now, I'm not getting you. The singularity cannot even be all there is and still has the tendency to expand. I don't know if you get me. It is a logical contradiction for anything to be all there is and still expanding. The two cannot go together.
I'd like to correct this assumption. Yeah, I think it is: 'you have already concluded
there must be something out there before you
even start your analysis'. From this point, I begin wonder if you are actually following. I tried to follow your argument of a multiverse.
What I'm only saying is that we wouldn't have payed more attention to the analyses of the materials outside our universe if not for your multiverse.
And my question still stands.
What lies inbetween two universes? Be brief and to the point.
2. To be sincere with you, I don't understand how the argument you are replying to amounts to :"If you see a
wrist watch washed up on the beach that no
one has ever seen before, the only logical
conclusion is that someone or something made it.
hence someone must have made/created humans
too". Their is no correlation. Not at all.
And to suggest we don't boundaries to explain the big bang also deviates from the question. The question now is, how can anything be expanding into nothing? Please be brief.
3. 'Simple, space is expanding but the galaxies
remain the same with respect to each other in
this example. Does it make any sense now?'.
Not yet. You know why this example will not work. We're are not about galaxies here. Our universe, from a galaxy, is the subject in this case. I sense you substituted space to cover the position of the universe. Lol. For the sake of clarity, this spaces that you claim expand are found where? Inside or outside their respective universes?
Above all, I'm still trying to figure out how anything can be said to be expanding when it is not expanding to something. Na wa o.

My multiverse input was just a side note.. and i explicitly mentioned it was a discussion for another day..

Now I give up. I'm trying to make you understand that there are steps to go through before we can ask and quantify that question. You are asking me "why is god omniscient?" When we haven't even established that a god exist?. It is just the same question mate,

We cannot even tell if the universe is finite or not. Keeping that in mind, we have to fully understand the universe we have now in other to predict more accurately what the singularity expanded "into" if any.


To be honest, I do understand and like the question, but the prevailing presumptions (namely:it must have been finite and hence expanded into something) are unnecessary. Granted, there are parts of the theory that needs more work. No one human being on earth can give you all the answers you're looking for on this topic. At the moment, it is the best we've got and it is holding water so far with more recent discoveries like results from the WMAP satellite that also confirm the bang. what caused the bang, and what happened before the bang is still a mystery.


If you have got a better explanation though, I would love to hear it.



To the entire thread so far: it is shortsighted to discredit an entire theory because one part of it isn't fully understood. Newtons gravitational law had its problems at the time. They were not sure however if mass or energy was the attraction to gravity, but the equation worked and everyone was happy. Now we know it is only an approximation and general relativity is far better

musKeeto:
What is scientheist?

an atheist and scientist! GBAM

As already pointed out, not all scientists believe The Big Bang is correct. There are plenty of alternative theories and the leading and likely more complete is Brane Theory (Ekpyrotic Universe).

Stop mixing religon with science.D big bang theory make a lot of scence.

i thought you guyz were talking about the Big Bang Theory Movie....

Guy...don't be foolish.

Everytime Humans don't understand something, some fools just say - IT MUST BE GOD!!

Why does rain come? Don't know? IT MUST BE GOD!

Why does lightning strike? Don't Know? IT MUST BE GOD!

Why do people get sick? Don't Know? IT MUST BE GOD!

How are babies made? Don't Know? IT MUST BE GOD!

You are doing the same thing.

Here I was having a nice discussion and then it hit the front page.

Big bang theory to this generation refers to the series starring Sheldon Cooper. . Bazinga!

alfaman2: Here I was having a nice discussion and then it hit the front page.

who took it to front page? haba!!! great minds cannot discuss in peace anymore

Can the universe expand into nothing? Shouldn't there be space for it to expand?

Anyway, all theories and arguments have tried, I am sticking with Christ forever.

bobby.L:
Can the universe expand into nothing? Shouldn't there be space for it to expand?

Anyway, all theories and arguments have tried, I am sticking with Christ till the end.

funny u decide to stick with the one that has no evidence or proof whatsoever

but discard the one that has something going for it

I have 1 problem with the Big Bang Theory
1. Speed of light vs speed of Matter
Light travels at 186,000 miles per second, or almost 670 million miles per hour.
According to Einstein's theory of relativity, nothing moves faster than the speed of
light. In fact, according to his theory, anything that even approaches the speed of
light, of necessity must become converted to light. Therefore, if an object is solid,
it must move at a speed considerably slower than the speed of light.

For the sake of comparison, let's assume that in space all matter is traveling at
one-fifth the speed of light or 134 million miles an hour.
With this understanding, if our star was made from matter that came from the big bang,
then it becomes almost impossible to explain how light from the Big Bang could travel
for 12 billion years in order to reach the point it took us 13.7 billion years to get to
when we were traveling at one-fifth the speed of light, especially since we both came
from the same place at the same time. For that to happen, our planet would have to
have been going faster than the speed of light and then slowed way down to let
light catch up with us.

Alfaman, i just lost FAITH in you.



Areaboy, gave clearcand simple explanations but you were anonynizing. The big bang is simply the best explanation we have now. The universe is expanding and scientists trace it back to a particular time they couldnt go past using mathemtical models and asssumptions from observing the universe.


To claim that it doesnt make sense is quitefoolish

The OP, is probing into what is above his comprehension.

Firstly, the link you posted did not contradict the Big Bang theory, rather the discovery of the 80mil additional earth years confirms the Big Bang theory's postulation.

Secondly, any good Christian who knows their bible well, will appreciate the Big Bang theory and will clearly see that, there is no conflict between this scientific postulation or other scientific theories and the Bible.

The Bible did not tell us how the earth was created, it simply stated "God created the heaven and earth" out of nothing and within a day.

The Big Bang theory is an attempt to explain the process, the chemistry and physics involved in the earth's creation. The theory postulated that the earth expanded out of a subatomic particle (so tinny that your normal micro scope will not see it, which essentially is nothing) and that the earth came to be in matters of seconds.

While, the Big Bang theorist will not see the hand of God, the christian, reading all these discoveries will purse and give God the glory for such a miracle.

The bible simply tells us God created the stars and put them in the skies to rule the night. None of ever asked how come the stars are not falling..we all believe that it is the supernatural power of God...but the studious Christian after further research will come to appreciate that, this supernatural power of God is called gravitational force.

Most great scientists are Christians, God is the greatest scientist ever. Man will continue to strive to understand God's scientific mind, the bible predicted it, so it is going to happen but just like the wall of Babylon, as man draws closer and closer to 'finding out' their progress will be halted by God....this could be the 2nd coming of Christ.

alfaman2: Coming from an atheist, this view might surprise some people but after studying this subject hard and giving it due consideration and comparing it with some religious doctrines, I have arrived at the conclusion that this theory is just a rubbish made up to explain some observations (as the religious made up God) but which, like God, fails woefully when probed further.

There are many holes in this theory. Even though it expalins a lot of things, actually contradicts itself.

Just last month, the most ardous proponents of the big bang as the ultimate explanation admited that they were mistaken by more than 80 million years. http://www.todayonline.com/daily-focus/science/universe-ages-80-million-years-big-bang-gets-clearer

80 million years! Think about it. The so called scientific community swept this under the carpet and said the fundamentals didn't change. Give me a break.

Let's look at the theory proper. Many scientists found problems with this Big Bang nonsense but the proponents, instead of using science, took a leaf from religion and invented something that explains away every problem: cosmic inflation!

Ask them to calculate the size of the universe if they know the beginning and the rate of acceleration, and they look like monkeys in a headlamp.

"You don't believe cosmic inflation, hey, here's dark matter." What is dark matter? Wait for it. "It is that which cannot be seen, be felt, or be heard, but we believe it is there because it makes sense for it to be there." Sounds familiar?

I believe in the ability of science to solve problems but I cannot accept blatant nonsense just because it comes from people with vested authorities.

Imagine this: A few million years ago, scientists in a far planet looking at earth and observing huge birds floating around the sky would conclude that there was not enough gravitational pull on earth to make things stick on the ground. So forget deduction through observation without all the facts.

come up with something abeg .....

ooman:

the earth is NEVER expanding, only the universe. Where did you get the idea of an expanding earth.

[b][/b]even the universe is not expanding,is just that they are discovering of planetary bodies that were formally unknown.

ooman:

Einstein's equation is divided into two parts Special Relativity and General Relativity. When talking about Einstein's equation, you must specify which you refer to.

For your question, we dont know the extent of space yet. But believe me, we know that the sun is got 10 billions years more to live before it explodes as in supernova through measureing its amount of H2. That is what cosmologists think will destroy the earth.

The earth is so small to be affected by the expansion of the universe now. Give it time, everything will be affected and death will come to all life.

Discussing this matter is really scary. Lets discuss how to make life sweet for us now that we can live.

the sun is in it middle age (5 billion years) it will slowly expand to form a red gaint and which may extend to earth b4 it cools n fade into a cold blabk dwarf. The sun's gravitational pull is 28 times stronger than dat of the earth and it also control the movement of the plants in the solar system

Area_boy:

My multiverse input was just a side note.. and i explicitly mentioned it was a discussion for another day..

Now I give up. I'm trying to make you understand that there are steps to go through before we can ask and quantify that question. You are asking me "why is god omniscient?" When we haven't even established that a god exist?. It is just the same question mate,

We cannot even tell if the universe is finite or not. Keeping that in mind, we have to fully understand the universe we have now in other to predict more accurately what the singularity expanded "into" if any.


To be honest, I do understand and like the question, but the prevailing presumptions (namely:it must have been finite and hence expanded into something) are unnecessary. Granted, there are parts of the theory that needs more work. No one human being on earth can give you all the answers you're looking for on this topic. At the moment, it is the best we've got and it is holding water so far with more recent discoveries like results from the WMAP satellite that also confirm the bang. what caused the bang, and what happened before the bang is still a mystery.


If you have got a better explanation though, I would love to hear it.



To the entire thread so far: it is shortsighted to discredit an entire theory because one part of it isn't fully understood. Newtons gravitational law had its problems at the time. They were not sure however if mass or energy was the attraction to gravity, but the equation worked and everyone was happy. Now we know it is only an approximation and general relativity is far better

Smh. No rebuttal yet.
Like this meat is too hefty to grind. You've tried but your best wasn't good enough. I requested that this be forwarded to the frontpage for a reason.
This is a challenge to everyone who agrees with the big bang theory and other gibberish some mentally retarded scientists have spewed and still spewing. The deal is, I will embrace atheism if anyone of you can answer this questions. Three only
1. What lies between two universes?
2. How can anything be expanding into nothing?
3. How does a singularity produce plurals without distorting the first law of thermodynamics?
If you have nothing to offer, just shift.

@linearity.
Thanks for that. However I'm of the opinion that scientific postulates are inadequate. I sometimes have some ideas about why some things are the way they are. However, I may or may not be close to the truth, so I hold on to the promise that when we will be translated, at the end of this existence as we know it, we will know all things.

I believe all that is going on, the advancements in science and technology, the increase in knowledge, etc are all part of the sequence of happenings that would usher in the end.

The bible already says in the last days, knowledge shall increase, I think it's obvious where we stand in time. Thanks.

Ibrahim mr fish: Stop mixing religon with science.D big bang theory make a lot of scence.

but nobody mentioned God here.
Your input is needed here..
Like this meat is too hefty to grind. You've tried but your best wasn't good enough. I requested that this be forwarded to the frontpage for a reason.
This is a challenge to everyone who agrees with the big bang theory and other gibberish some mentally retarded scientists have spewed and still spewing. The deal is, I will embrace atheism if anyone of you can answer this questions. Three only
1. What lies between two universes?
2. How can anything be expanding into nothing?
3. How does a singularity produce plurals without distorting the first law of thermodynamics?
If you have nothing to offer, just shift.

Michaeljones36: Guy...don't be foolish.

Everytime Humans don't understand something, some fools just say - IT MUST BE GOD!!

Why does rain come? Don't know? IT MUST BE GOD!

Why does lightning strike? Don't Know? IT MUST BE GOD!

Why do people get sick? Don't Know? IT MUST BE GOD!

How are babies made? Don't Know? IT MUST BE GOD!

You are doing the same thing.

Have you seen my challenge? Let's get to work.

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

bobby.L:
Can the universe expand into nothing? Shouldn't there be space for it to expand?

Anyway, all theories and arguments have tried, I am sticking with Christ forever.

Lol. I trust them atheists.