₦airaland Forum

If this happened in igboland, this thread would have been full of rabid dogs on my left insulting their forefathers, but as it happenned in their place, amongst their people, ....

Shhhh! Don't mention the tribe.
[img]http://3.bp..com/_a2RpU3s3ykg/TP3XSde2vSI/AAAAAAAAAAc/cgl-r9m6vvA/s320/shh.jpg[/img]

Logicboy03: Sharrap, I expected better from you. As far as this thread is concerned, you are among the ignorant ones.



Seriously disappointed, bro. you're ma pal, but you fall my hand

Instead of shouting all over this thread like a rabid dog, you might as well use the time to explain to us your own understanding of the big bang.

Area Boy, Wiegraf and any other intelligent person out there, please let us continue this discussion because I believe we are learning a lot from it despite our divergent views. Let us not let the ignorant derailers derails us.

My version is even better:

Honor the Pastor with your possessions, And with the firstfruits of all your increase; So your barns will be filled with plenty, And your vats will overflow with new wine.

[quote author=Area_boy]oh god!! Mate, your questions are starting to give me a headache

Hang on, I did answer the direct question u asked. you're now asking something else.

It is called Observable because that is as much as we can see. It is not possible that we are in the center of the universe. since we can see about 13.8 billion light years in all direction and all indications point that we have a flat universe (which is the model that allows our universe to actually come from nothing), then we cannot be in the center and hence there is much more to it (unobservable universe).

So to answer this question, indications show that the universe we have both observable and otherwise must have originated from the bang.

on your second part of the size at singularity being finite: You have a good point here... since the universe was very tiny just before the bang, then it indeed must have been finite (bar any wrong presumption we haven't noticed). I have no direct explanation as to why this could be true, false or unnecessary but I will find out and come back to it [/quote]I'm still waiting for your comeback on this.

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

[quote author=Godman_n]What the young man did is bad and condemnable; But also killing people by hanging is crude and unforgiveable.

The politicians in the country are idiots. They all deserve a worse fate than this armed robber. They have killed millions by the difficult economic conditions they have created in our land.

We also should have advance like in Europe where CAPITAL PUNISHMENT has been outlawed.

The law should be a reformer and not a life taker[/quote]I can see you have never been confronted by armed robbers.

He had a gun. Hang him.

If I seduce a frustrated virgin and give her a night to remember, am I good or evil?

[quote author=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 [/quote]No. I am bent on the path of the truth.

[quote author=Area_boy]you are a fanny.

Search: Father George lemaitre on google [/quote]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.

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.

Other stereotypes.

Awolowo loves one nigeria.

Adekunle Fajuyi gave his life for Ironsi.

Abokis are stuppid.

Ogugua88 is an Igbo girl.

Murtala Mohamed was a great president.

Nigeria is a country.

Ojukwu was a coward.

Oladipo Diya is a brave general.

Nigeria is rich.

God is love.

Adam is your forefather.

Women are the weaker sex.

You wont get STD if you wear condom.

Mukina2 is not Seun.

berem: Nairaland belongs to an Igbo man.

It's a prophesy that will come to pass.

I never knew that the foolishness of the christians were intentional.

VanTee20: No comment.

Program fails? Need reboot?

Image123: Adam was a man who got permission to use his brains. ...

Adam chose the tree of knowledge but Christ chose to save us using the tree of foolishness.

Chei! I can't stop laughing. It would be unbelievable if I weren't reading it.

[quote author=Area_boy]I'm not sure how this is a serious question . Or you are just trying to see what I know?

Simply put, we dont even know if our universe is finite or infinite. So the idea of universal size can only be approximated under the "observable" universe clause. Taking into account the expansion of space over the 13.8 billion light years, physicist have found the observable universe to be about 90 billion light years across

since one parsec is about 3.25 light years, that gives an approx value of 28 billion parsecs accross[/quote]You see why I said it doesn't make enough sense. You just left my question and answered something else.

Did the Big Bang Theorists say that the observable universe was caused by the Big Bang or that the universe was caused by the Big Bang?

Are you saying that the Big Bang caused only the observable universe to exist? You see how incomplete and senseless that sounds?

If it was an atom a few billion years ago, then it must be finite, no matter how large and no matter the speed of expansion.

[quote author=Area_boy]ok alfaman. I clearly see the problem now. You actually have never taken the time to read carefully the ins and outs of the damn theory.

you make the mistake of saying "our world" and "other world". You see, the laws of physics apply to our "observable" universe. That includes planets, stars, galaxies and the whole lot. It is that same physics we used to get Curiosity on mars and cassini into saturns orbit. Or you dont count those places as space too? Newtons first law; A body continues in its state of rest or constant motion unless acted upon by another force. Clearly there must be some "force", "energy" or even "entity" opposing stars from being consumed by the core of their galaxies. And yes, most of the assumptions you have stated have been considered and tested. The only one coming back with positive result is the idea of an opposing force "dark energy".

The thing is, Einstein predicted it over 70 years ago, and not up to 20 years ago it has been confirmed with experiments. So there really is no "assumptions" here.

Like I said, point out one particular aspect of the big bang theory that troubles you so I can clarify it for you. I'm a member of my local astronomical society so I do have a fair idea of what i'm talking about. If I cant answer, I'll pass the question down to my colleagues and have them get an answer.

How does that sound?

The same way you have seen bacteria evolve under the microscope, I've seen galaxies shooting off in various direction confirming the expanding "observable" universe.[/quote]No. You clearly don't see the problem now. I have read the fundamentals of the theory and found enough holes, inconsistencies and blatant fabrications to conclude that reading the ins and out would be a complete waste of time.

Why do you say it is a mistake to assume there are different worlds and different laws apply. Take the example of the magnet that you brought up previously. Staying in our solar system, the nearer an object is to the sun, the less magnetic it becomes. And you accept that the area near the Sun is space.

Have you considered that Newtons first law might be wrong or not apply in certain parts of the universe.
It is unthinkable in the scientific community for the laws of motion not be right, they thus invent other variables to make it look right. Just like Algebra.
Even in our little earth, Newtons laws have been shown not to work all the time like in the movement of electricity in a semiconductor.
It has also been demonstrated that those laws of motion don't apply on objects traveling at or near the speed of light. And some parts of the universe are travelling faster than the speed of light.

Let me correct the following statement for you:

And yes, most of the assumptions you have stated have been considered and tested. The only one coming back with a result that does not contradict our own laws is the idea of an opposing force "dark energy".

You see, dark energy just serves to maintain the status quo.

Coming to your offer to explain troubling parts of the Big Bang, here goes: Knowing the size of the universe at a few seconds after the big bang, factoring in cosmic inflation, and knowing the rate of acceleration of particles since then, how big, approximately, to the nearest billion parsec, is the universe?

[quote author=Area_boy]Simple answer is Nothing. we are expanding into nothing and so did the singularity expand into nothing because our universe is everything there is.

phew!!!

All that junk just to say nothing .. but i hope you understand my line of reasoning though.[/quote]The simple answer is you don't know. When you scientists start accepting that you don't know, we might start advancing.
How sure are you it is expanding into nothing? It could well be expanding into a liquid or solid or another matter that we have no concept of. That we don't know what it is doesn't mean that it is not likely to exist.

wiegraf: You also said;



Which you failed to address. So, again, is all this just rhetoric?

Also, interesting. Theories are fabrications....which can be falsified. They're fabrications... built around the concept of falsification.

Makes perfect sense.




Which is exactly why I say you're saying nothing new. The scientific community has doubts about certain bits of the model, some of the whole model itself, which is why it's constantly being investigated (note though, it's still a very good model, probably the best we have). Yet you dress it up like shoving BB down our throats is some super-secret worldwide agenda of our unreasonable scientist overlords.





Are accusing me of double talk despite my point above? Saying it's both "blatant nonsense" and "doesn't make enough sense" at once? It's one or the either, which is it?

My stance is clear, you aren't saying anything new but seem bent on misrepresenting for... I have no idea why. Perhaps you think you're making some kind of stance?





Well, I don't think you know me, or you misunderstand. I'm not beyond using shady tactics if I thought it would serve a purpose (good luck to anyone trying to catch me), but there's no need to do so here.

You're right in that I understand your point, but my point with that bit is that, again, you aren't saying anything new yet seem bent on twisting it around. Nobody knows what dark matter is, only that it exists, but you state otherwise. As a result, that bit of your post is inaccurate.

In fact, you do so again here;


In your words, "Please don't lecture me on dark matter because I know exactly what dark matter is". Your analogy is flawed, the one I made earlier is more accurate. Again, the word "DARK" should give anyone a clue.

There are various candidates for what both DM and DE are, and their effects have been observed. Their wiki articles are a good starting point. They exist, or do you deny that? The issue is their nature, what they consist of (it could be multiple components sef), etc, etc.







Anyways, I suppose my main point of contention can be summed thus; it's reasonable to take issue with people who say BB is absolute truth, but to claim BB is absolute nonsense is not. And I hope I don't have to explain the nature of 'truth' here and other nuances of the scientific method? (I won't if I have to anyways, time for one, and really...)

You are right. I don't really know you because I am now quite sure that you are deliberately twisting my words.

You didn't even take the time to grasp my analogy before calling it flawed.

What is the difference between Adamu supposing the existence of a thief called Batuta, and scientist supposing the existence of a force called dark energy or dark matter?

If you understood my analogy and my previous explanations, you wouldn't have some questions you asked. So let me put my words together for you so may be able to grasp what I meant.

Big Bang Theory makes sense when used to explain certain observations but doesn't make sense when other factors are put into the equation. That is why my topic says "Doesn't Make Enough Sense". Many scientists have already found problems with this Big Bang nonsense. I cannot thus continue to accept blatant nonsense because it makes no sense. We are just inventing explanations for it to make sense. It is stark incompetence. It's incapability to answer simple questions is akin to being found out with the hand in the cookie jar. It is meaningless.

Although far fetched, take algebra for example. We all know that 1 + 1 = 2. But in algebra, it can equal anything you want it to. It doesn't make sense but you can't disprove it. That's what big bang is. A model that doesn't make sense but stays in the mainstream because everybody accepted the calculations.

Ok? You get it now? Despite being blatant nonsense, Big Bang helps in explaining a few things. But it is still, nonsense, like 1y + 1y = 7y.

For the rest of your queries, I want you to go back to my analogy and read it properly. Until the following day, everybody accepted the existence of a thief.

^^^. This is exactly what I said in the op. Cosmic inflation helps the Big Bangers a lot.

Obiagelli: You have my vote Sir, I would campaign for you like i did in 2011 for the future of our children.

Btw
Hilarious name
Ahmadu Yaro Coca-Cola

Another lost soul.

VanTee20: I don't think there is anytn that can stump christians in this question.

The Judgement day, to me, is the day when all people in the world, young, old, living, dead, male, female, will stand before God's seat of judgement to be judged based on their earthly deeds.

The main purpose, i think, is to seperate God's children from the devil's and to given blessings & punishment unto whom it's due.

Another christian robot spewing out a programmed speech without answering the question asked.

So didn't reach the palace.

A bomb exploded in Boston before it could reach white house.

I hope for big explosions to mark the centenary celebrations.

turnstoner: @baby123,

You know why the Nigerian police cant solve the simplest of crimes?

Its because the society that created them doesnt believe that its fate is in its own hands!

Who needs the police when you have almighty everlasting doG in heaven taking care of everything.

Muskeeto = Striktlymi?

Wonderful. Ol boy, do you get paid to impersonate yourself?

frosbel: actually I have been doing it for years and it's taking me nearer to Christ, something must be wrong

Yes, with your brain.

turnstoner: Perhaps they would rather have Prozac, drugs or alcohol than heaven?!

Anything but heaven.