Problems with the Big Bang theory

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

None of your points have any evidence behind them, and your argument sounds like preaching. It's arrogant beyond belief to say that atheism isn't valid in the face of fact, especially when you didn't give a fact beforehand, but an illogical speculation. Please study the rules before you post in CT again.

This has already been stated, restated, and then stated officially. It didn't need another one.

But how did the can of paint come to being, and what caused it to spill?

Yes, that's the problem of infinite regress, and why the entire discussion about causeless causes is silly, but my point in proposing that example of cause and effect was that brandonmcginnis was pointing only to things that couldn't in his opinion occur randomly. One of his examples was that paintings need a painter. I was simply demonstrating that you can generate a painting without a painter. Or at least, if you define "painter" as "the cause of a painting" that you can have a painting without an intelligent, planning painter.

[ledwix]

How do you solve infinite regress? There has to have been a beginning to time, right? I don't see any other way without ad hoc'ing everything with multiverse stuff.

[devonin]

You don't solve infinite regress. That's why science is concerned with the effects of the Big Bang when discussing the theory, instead of trying fruitlessly to find a cause for it outside of itself.

That's also why religion likes to take shots at science because religion claims to have an answer to infinite regress: A being that doesn't have to obey those rules.

Science however is prepared to actually admit that it doesn't know for sure what caused the big bang, and are content to simply study the effects.

[hayatewillown]

Originally Posted by Relambrien

Behold, another person who does not understand the word "theory" in a scientific sense, and who doesn't know the first thing about evolution.

I'll do you a favor and clear up both of your misconceptions now.

First, the word "theory." It is not simply an idea that someone comes up with that people say "Hmm, sounds neat." No, that would be a hypothesis. A theory is an idea that has been extensively researched and tested by many, many scientists, and which has been found to be accurate. A law is a theory that is pretty much guaranteed to be correct, simply because no other explanation is viable. For instance, gravity. Gravity is the only viable explanation as to why the Earth orbits the sun, etc., has been extensively tested, and therefore is a law. (These are simplistic definitions of course, and you could find more in-depth ones if you searched, but these are enough for the purposes of what I'm trying to say)

Next, your foolish thought that evolution says humans came from monkeys. That's not how evolution works, my friend. In fact, the belief that humans evolved from monkeys is the hallmark of a person who doesn't understand evolution.

Evolution states that, many many years ago, there was a certain species. Its descendants, through evolution and natural selection, began to differ from each other in a process known as "divergent evolution." One branch went to form modern humans, the other branch went on to form modern monkeys. So while humans and monkeys are related, humans did not evolve from monkeys. Both came from a so-called "common ancestor."

However, even with extensive research, a theory is a theory, nothing more. You can believe that, but what happens if that theory is truely irrelevant to the creation of humans?
After all we don't call it the Big Bang Law.

You can still believe in it however, you can almost think of it being a religion, you know, using the whole "God create this" or "The big bang created this".

You don't need to be an ass about it and say "misconceptions". Don't act like it's such a big deal or a liberty given to you. Critical thinking is where you debate about things, not condescend.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by hayatewillown

However, even with extensive research, a theory is a theory, nothing more. You can believe that, but what happens if that theory is truely irrelevant to the creation of humans?
After all we don't call it the Big Bang Law.

Exactly, because it hasn't been shown to be the only remotely viable solution to the problem, simply one of the more viable ones. If further evidence comes in and shows that the other solutions can't be right, then yes, we would call it the Big Bang Law. It's just that that isn't very likely to happen.

I mean, the law of gravity isn't the only possible reason the Earth orbits the sun. Maybe the Earth and the sun just like each other, as do all the other things orbiting celestial bodies. But that just isn't viable, which is why gravity is considered a law.

Originally Posted by hayatewillown

You don't need to be an ass about it and say "misconceptions". Don't act like it's such a big deal or a liberty given to you. Critical thinking is where you debate about things, not condescend.

I will call it what it is. It was a misconception, therefore I will call it a misconception. I'm not going to sugarcoat things and say that it was a "partially correct idea" when, in fact, it was a misconception by definition.

The problem is that "misconception" seems to be grouped with "stupidity" or "idiocy" when it's just an incorrect idea. People are too quick to assume things.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by hayatewillown

However, even with extensive research, a theory is a theory, nothing more. You can believe that, but what happens if that theory is truely irrelevant to the creation of humans?
After all we don't call it the Big Bang Law.

You can still believe in it however, you can almost think of it being a religion, you know, using the whole "God create this" or "The big bang created this".

You don't need to be an ass about it and say "misconceptions". Don't act like it's such a big deal or a liberty given to you. Critical thinking is where you debate about things, not condescend.

The major difference between a Law and a Theory is that a law describes terms (almost always mathematically). A Theory explains them. In terms of scientific power a theory is actually preferable. It doesn't have anything to do with how sound it is necessarily; for example, gravity is both a theory and a law depending on how you're addressing it. Laws are usually more substantially verified than theories, but theories don't magically become Laws once they've been 'proven'... they remain theories.

As such the Big Bang will never be a law...nor will evolution, as they explain how things happened. Things like Laws, for example, Newton's Law of gravitation, are mathematical descriptions. And ironically, they can be wrong (Newton's Law assumes gravity travels instantaneously and is wrong. His law also gave him no explanatory power whatsoever. We were in the dark until Einstein's 'Theory' of General Relativity, which not only did all of the explaining, but corrected his error).



And comparing it to religion is way off base. It's the opposite, actually. In science you make hypotheses, gather data, and then from there make conclusions. With religion you make conclusions without doing any research (and then ironically go looking for the facts after the fact)...

[Mookage]

Well this is ironic...I was just studying up for my Space test which includes the Big Bang Theory.

See what my textbook states is that "All the matter in the universe was compacted." Therefore, according to my textbook the matter didn't come from nowhere but was simply compacted until the monstous event occured.

[devonin]

But that statement doesn't address the question you seem to think it answers. All matter was compacted...into what? by what?

[Mookage]

Well it doesn't actually say but I can easily look and find it would have been compacted into a fairly large ball or star. This would have happened by gravity as there is still gravity in space.

[devonin]

So the force of gravity, presumably from the superdense ball of matter, was what was holding the ball of matter in its superdense form...what force could possibly have changed that?

[rzr]

Originally Posted by Mookage

Well this is ironic...I was just studying up for my Space test which includes the Big Bang Theory.

See what my textbook states is that "All the matter in the universe was compacted." Therefore, according to my textbook the matter didn't come from nowhere but was simply compacted until the monstous event occured.

Sorry to interject but is it not entirely possible that the text book might have either provided or been provided with false information? I have found mistakes in them before. Also, i never remember seeing that the matter was compacted but if it was wouldn't it have remained more dense meaning when sid theory came into existance certain things, like water forming on earth, might not have happened?

[Dark Ronin]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

None of your points have any evidence behind them, and your argument sounds like preaching.

I find it a little funny that the people who give the Big Bang Theory such a hard time are religious people. The truth is that the Big Bang Theory was originally proposed by Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic Priest. The theory was regarded as ludicrous because it was based on religion and there for could have no true scientific value. They later found that there were a lot of facts to back it up and then accepted it. It is currently the most widely accepted Theory pertaining to the creation of the universe as we know it.

The Big Bang Theory basically states that a lot of matter was condensed until for some unknown reason a charge caused them to react. They really don’t know how the charge got there exactly, perhaps it was just a few elements that finally came in contact with each other and reacted. This was proven in the lab by several scientists; well, they proved that it could happen not that it did.

Finally to help out the anti-Big Banggers here; there are several scientific facts that disprove the Big Bang Theory. Most of the disproving facts have actually been incorporated into the Big Bang Theory. Scientists change it to suit their needs (i.e. Studies on globular clusters suggested that they were about 15 billion years old, which conflicted with the 13-billion-year age of the universe so they just tweak the age a bit.) That fact in itself shows that the Big Bang Theory isn’t even a very good Theory to begin with.

Two of the biggest problems with it are the Horizon Problem and the Flatness/Oldness Problem.:

The flatness problem has to do with the fact that density of the Universe appears to be roughly 10% of the critical density. Critical density being the density of matter/energy that would just halt the expansion of the universe; the dividing line between a collapsing and an ever-expanding. This seems rather fortuitous; why is it so close to the critical density? We can imagine that the density might be 0.0000001% of the critical value or 100000000% of it. Why is it so close to 100%?

The horizon problem relates to the smoothness of the CMB, cosmic microwave background, which is the radiation filling the universe, remaining from the early, hot phase. (It is sometimes called the "primal glow.") Today this radiation has cooled to 2.73 K and is strongest in the microwave part of the spectrum. The problem is that theCMB is exceedingly smooth (if one corrects for the effects caused by the Earth and Sun's motions). Two points separated by more than 1 degree or so have the same temperature to within 0.001%. However, two points this far apart today would not have been in causal contact at very early times in the Universe. In other words, the distance separating them was greater than the distance light could travel in the age of the Universe. There was no way for two such widely separated points to communicate and equalize their temperatures.

[rzr]

Originally Posted by Dark Ronin

The Big Bang Theory basically states that a lot of matter was condensed until for some unknown reason a charge caused them to react. They really don’t know how the charge got there exactly, perhaps it was just a few elements that finally came in contact with each other and reacted. This was proven in the lab by several scientists; well, they proved that it could happen not that it did.

That sort of works in with the atomic bomb. In physics when an atomic bomb is created and exploded it is exploded because the densely packed atoms (no matter what element they be is, hydrogem etc.) upon impact or detonation, explode and when they dop they keep splitting off increasingly the further they go.

My metaphor is to say that with the big bang theory maybe the spreading of said condensed matter is not done. Like, maybe the explosion happened and then the previously condensed matter spread off by splitting, well maybe it's not done splitting yet...

[Reach]

Finally to help out the anti-Big Banggers here; there are several scientific facts that disprove the Big Bang Theory.

'Facts' that disprove the Big Bang Theory? Uh, no? They most certainly do not disprove it. They are simply gaps in an incomplete theory.

WMAP observations, along with others leave no doubt that the Big Bang is an event that actually happened. WMAP and COBE both support inflation theory with data that fits our current models, and inflation solves both problems you addressed. Theories aren't 'changed to suit our needs'. They are changed to fit the data that has been collected and fix the problems. There is a huge difference. The whole point of a theory is to explain things, and they are rarely perfect. You test your theories and modify them to better fit the data, but that most certainly doesn't disprove the initial premise (that the big bang was the beginning of the universe we see).

People make a similar argument against evolution all the time...drawing on old problems and old data that have been solved and are out of date. The data currently supports inflation, and it's gaining a lot of steam. Though there are also alternatives with slightly different mechanisms. Either way, all of these sub theories of the Big Bang do support the Big Bang itself. They're just different ways of addressing the aftermath (i.e. going from the big bang to what we have now). Some try to address what happened before the Big Bang, though testing these models can be difficult. D:

[ShAiOnEi]

space bubbled up and created matter from the gases left from the bubbled atmosphere, it took large amounts of time until our universe became so vast

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Reach

The major difference between a Law and a Theory is that a law describes terms (almost always mathematically). A Theory explains them. In terms of scientific power a theory is actually preferable. It doesn't have anything to do with how sound it is necessarily; for example, gravity is both a theory and a law depending on how you're addressing it. Laws are usually more substantially verified than theories, but theories don't magically become Laws once they've been 'proven'... they remain theories.

As such the Big Bang will never be a law...nor will evolution, as they explain how things happened. Things like Laws, for example, Newton's Law of gravitation, are mathematical descriptions. And ironically, they can be wrong (Newton's Law assumes gravity travels instantaneously and is wrong. His law also gave him no explanatory power whatsoever. We were in the dark until Einstein's 'Theory' of General Relativity, which not only did all of the explaining, but corrected his error).



And comparing it to religion is way off base. It's the opposite, actually. In science you make hypotheses, gather data, and then from there make conclusions. With religion you make conclusions without doing any research (and then ironically go looking for the facts after the fact)...

Well, my information on the differences between laws and theories mainly come from high school science (with some personal research thrown in), so I'll go ahead and direct anyone concerned about the definition of a law to this post rather than my description, since mine isn't nearly as complete as this.

EDIT: Tsk, wasted post 666 on a non-religious thread.

[Dark Ronin]

Originally Posted by Reach

'Facts' that disprove the Big Bang Theory? Uh, no? They most certainly do not disprove it. They are simply gaps in an incomplete theory.

…I did say disprove didn’t I... My bad, I was in a rush. I was trying to point out the gaps; to encourage the religious people to look beyond god and find real facts. It’s hard to use god in an argument against science in today’s society. And those were facts that anyone who has taken a simple physics class should know. I admit they by no means disprove the Big Bang Theory, but they were facts none the less.

WMAP observations, along with others leave no doubt that the Big Bang is an event that actually happened.

There is definitely still a doubt. It CANNOT be proven. Ok it can’t be proven with out current technology. There’s just no way anyone can see what happened in the past. They have proven that it could happen, and it very well may have, but to say that it did happen without any doubt at all is a very bold and arrogant statement.

WMAP and COBE both support inflation theory with data that fits our current models, and inflation solves both problems you addressed.

I have heard of the inflation theory, and I'm glad someone did enough research to find it. It does offer some explanation as to why these things might occur as they are said to have according to the Big Bang Theory, but if the only things that supports an unprovable theory are more unprovable theories, how can that theory really be taken seriously?

Theories aren't ‘changed to suit our needs'. They are changed to fit the data that has been collected and fix the problems. There is a huge difference. The whole point of a theory is to explain things, and they are rarely perfect. You test your theories and modify them to better fit the data, but that most certainly doesn't disprove the initial premise (that the big bang was the beginning of the universe we see).

I admit my statement was a little extreme, but many theories most certainly are changed to suit our needs. Especially in the case of the Big Bang Theory. In this case I suppose it’s really all we can do. As I stated before, it is impossible to know just exactly what happened, but if we continue to find flaws and refine the theory, we might have something. Deductive reasoning is hard to apply when you don’t already have a set list of possibilities in front of you, but it’s certainly better than nothing.

People make a similar argument against evolution all the time...drawing on old problems and old data that have been solved and are out of date. The data currently supports inflation, and it's gaining a lot of steam. Though there are also alternatives with slightly different mechanisms.

Evolution is a different matter completely. There is actually information to support it. True they are changing it all the time, but it is because we have incomplete fossil records. New fossils are found, or new species discovered so they must rearrange the phylogenies accordingly.

Either way, all of these sub theories of the Big Bang do support the Big Bang itself. They're just different ways of addressing the aftermath (i.e. going from the big bang to what we have now).

True.

Some try to address what happened before the Big Bang, though testing these models can be difficult. D:

I've given up on Pre-Big Bang, because it is entirely possible that there was no Pre-Big Bang. Perhaps there was a condense pocket of gasses and they exploded and that was it. It’s hard for us to accept it with our current knowledge, but you can’t deny that it is just as likely as any other theory we currently have on the subject.

[Zythus]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

This thread is precisely why I don't buy into atheism - people ignore all organized religions, don't even bother to come up with their own ideas, then decide that the only possible reason that all organized religions could be wrong is because there is no god in any shape or form. Having an omnipotent being that is free of the bindings of time and space that created the universe has just as many holes in evidence as a superparticle in an unmeasurable amount of nothing exploding into planets that have particles that line themselves up to make beings with consciousness. Both are equally likely and blindly choosing one over the other is logically foolish.

I completely see no legitimate thesis in that. If you say that science and religion are parallel, then why is there no equalibrium between the two? Why did education evolve from teachings of god to teaching of science and evolution? Because the contempoary human mind tends to regard materialism over religious beliefs. This, on the basis of religion, is not a bad thing, to question the omnipresent, all knowing existence, god. Religion has absolutely no whatsoever potential to reveal a standing argument of creation. Science however has a logical factor within, even though it is also a religion.

For me, as humans evolve, we think more widely. I saw one post about quantum physics which I believe can be expanded upon. Like religion, we have no ethical way to prove this, but thats the instigation for further resolvement.

[Dark Ronin]

Originally Posted by Zythus

the contempoary human mind tends to regard materialism over religious beliefs.

This isn’t entirely true. I did some research into the subject and it’s actually quite interesting. The "contemporary human" actually split science up into two competing belief systems (traditions) of science. These were the Hermetic and Mechanistic Traditions. Both included the spiritual world into them. Hermetic Tradition of Science- believed in a direct relationship between a material world and a spiritual world "Where the heart, hand, and mind were all integrated". Mechanistic Tradition of science- believed in a separation of the material world from the spiritual world "Where the heart and hand were divorced from the mind".

King Charles II established, by charter, The Royal Society of London for Promotion Natural Knowledge, its members were mechanistic and quickly associated hermetics with the occult, paganism, and heresy. This association of the hermetic tradition of science with "darker" forces still exists today. These were the only sciences until Thomas Hobbes emerged into the philosophical scene and challenged the very existence of a spiritual world. His Materialistic Tradition later became physics as we know it today. Physics then created chemistry which in turn created biology.

There’s a brief history of our scientific belief systems. Everything we believe today is because of an order made by a king in the seventeenth century. Now I'm not saying it’s incorrect, it would be completely asinine to say that all science is lie. I'm just saying that we shouldn’t be so caught up on thinking were perfect. Yes its served us well so far, but we all need to be open to the possibility that it could be flawed, or at least partially so. "The contemporary mind" has little to do with today’s science, its something that changes all the time, hopefully for the better. I believe in separating science from the spirit, much like the Mechanistic Tradition tried to do. Things should be measured with something we can measure, but just because we can’t prove something doesn’t me it isn’t true, and on that same note, just because we can’t disprove something it doesn’t mean it is true.

[Zythus]

Originally Posted by Dark Ronin

This isn’t entirely true. I did some research into the subject and it’s actually quite interesting. The "contemporary human" actually split science up into two competing belief systems (traditions) of science. These were the Hermetic and Mechanistic Traditions. Both included the spiritual world into them. Hermetic Tradition of Science- believed in a direct relationship between a material world and a spiritual world "Where the heart, hand, and mind were all integrated". Mechanistic Tradition of science- believed in a separation of the material world from the spiritual world "Where the heart and hand were divorced from the mind".

King Charles II established, by charter, The Royal Society of London for Promotion Natural Knowledge, its members were mechanistic and quickly associated hermetics with the occult, paganism, and heresy. This association of the hermetic tradition of science with "darker" forces still exists today. These were the only sciences until Thomas Hobbes emerged into the philosophical scene and challenged the very existence of a spiritual world. His Materialistic Tradition later became physics as we know it today. Physics then created chemistry which in turn created biology.

There’s a brief history of our scientific belief systems. Everything we believe today is because of an order made by a king in the seventeenth century. Now I'm not saying it’s incorrect, it would be completely asinine to say that all science is lie. I'm just saying that we shouldn’t be so caught up on thinking were perfect. Yes its served us well so far, but we all need to be open to the possibility that it could be flawed, or at least partially so. "The contemporary mind" has little to do with today’s science, its something that changes all the time, hopefully for the better. I believe in separating science from the spirit, much like the Mechanistic Tradition tried to do. Things should be measured with something we can measure, but just because we can’t prove something doesn’t me it isn’t true, and on that same note, just because we can’t disprove something it doesn’t mean it is true.

No, I don't deny spirituality, it is very much apparent that we integrate allegory when we perceive ideas, along with materialism. But this does not justify what we see in religion. We tend to question the world for what it is, and why things are this way and such, but even so we are more rationed to "logic" and common sense. Religion offers no allegory, only making us wander through the text that has been assigned to our faith, telling us that you will find salvation etc, if YOU do what I (god) say. As tradition goes, its more of a mechanical scenario and we like to relate back to what tradition teaches us. Not god, not some celestial being.