The "Big Bang" is nothing more than a theory...worse than that, it's an incredibly bogus theory. A bang came from nothing...and suddenly everything was created from nothing. I don't buy it. As I don't buy the theory that the cosmos is expanding. Based on the speed of light, what we eventually see, is, and always has been there. It's the light that shows us what is and always has been out there on the far reaches of the cosmos. If anything, light is expanding.
Oh, sure! That video proves a lot...NOT! Guess you have to be a 'rocket scientist' to get it. Who really cares?!? Seriously. What does it matter if there was or wasn't a Big Bang? Not losing sleep over here, HaHa!
Yes Hubble's law has failed. Red shift is a result of the lens effect of the dark matter of our galaxy and in the case you are citing perhaps the dark matter in the galaxy you are looking at is also red shifting the smaller black hole to make it appear even further away, when in fact it is within the same dark matter for that galaxy. I would think that your evidence would support my idea of dark matter having an index of refraction as show by the Opera experiment.
The big bang theory relies on the assumption that galactic redshifts are a doppler effect caused by expanding space. It is quite possible, however, that they are instead a scattering effect. Light may simply be losing energy from it's interaction with matter in the intergalactic medium. In this case, the high redshifts of quasars would be partly due to the dense envelope of gases that encompass them, giving them an intrinsic non-cosmological (i.e. non-distance-related) redshift.
Now that I think of it, the big bang theory actually sounds quite silly. I read somewhere that it was once proposed, similarly, in a theory espoused by a Catholic clergyman. It is childlike and fantasy oriented to think that magic can happen where things spontaneously appear (ie - the big bang). Science itself has disproved this type of magical behavior - magicians cant really find a relevant audience anymore, either can big bang theorists.
Why is the Big Bang and God's existence always being argued here? Neither statement disproves the other. If you are going by the "day" bit the Hebrew word is "Yown" which means a period of time to be specified. The ARGUMENT is if there was intelligence behind the formation of the universe. That is a purely speculative question and a waste of time to argue about. Many theories are obviously wrong and they will continue to be flawed until we know everything, which will be never.
@gfan83 As confirmed as a scientific theory is possible to be, yes. But perhaps you have a better explanation for the following: the CMB, gravitational lensing, primordial nucleosynthesis, Hubble constant, galactic evolution and distribution, to name but a few.
@gfan83 No, redshift is not detected between 2 unmoving objects on Earth. They can be used for terrestrial objects moving relative to each other, such as Doppler radar and radar guns. Unless you want to rewrite the laws of physics, you will have to try much harder than that.
@gfan83 You seem deeply confused here. Between what two unmoving objects are you referring to? What was the name of the experiment? What peer reviewed article was it published in?
@gfan83 Yes, gravitational redshift is fairly well known. It is predicted by relativity, which is the central theoretical underpinning of the big bang. I'm not sure what your point is.
@BlankVellum As confirmation biased as it is possible for any theory to be you mean. Just because you have one interpretation doesn't mean it's right. What a terribly misinformed world view.
@doltBmB But it isn't just one interpretation. How incredibly ignorant you are. Perhaps you can offer another valid and robust scientific theory which explains the following: The CMB, galaxy distribution and composition, primordial nucleosynthesis (ie why there is no fewer than 24% helium in any galaxy, a major prediction of the big bang theory), galactic redshift, gravitational lensing...There are so many observations I could mention where the big bang passes with flying colours.
@BlankVellum BB doesn't explain redshift, it doesn't explain anything. It's fundamentally retarded and self contradictory. I can't say what a lot of those things are, but if you aren't allowed to think other than the high king BlankVellum says how will we ever find out?
@doltBmB Oh, I was hoping for an actual argument. Instead I'm left with a stupid troll who doesn't actually know what the fuck he's talking about. So let me explain this to you in simple terms, so that you'll understand: The big bang theory (to be specific, the Lambda CDM model of cosmology) explains a vast amount of observations that have been made. It certainly explains redshift, and asserting that it doesn't, without giving a scientific reason, makes you look fundamentally absurd.
@doltBmB So, unless you actually have a scientifically valid explanation as to why the standard model of cosmology is incorrect, complete with robust data, theory and peer reviewed backing, then your incoherent, ignorant whining will go ignored. Does that sound agreeable to you cupcake?
@doltBmB Right seeing as you are so cognitively obtuse as to not have the slightest fucking clue what a reasonable discussion entails, I'm going to refrain from responding to you. If you actually have an argument, rather than offering up completely fucking insane non-sequiturs,let me know darling.To say something like 'the big bang doesn't explain redshift' and act as if you haven't said something as unbelievably ignorant as you just did,is to warrant the ridicule you are know receiving
@doltBmB No, it is not self evident at all. Saying something wrong over and over again does not make it less wrong by the way. The observed shift of galaxies towards the red end of the spectrum over a suitably large distance (many megaparsecs) implies the universe is expanding. Galaxies twice as far away from ours are redshifted twice as much, implying the universe is expanding. Extrapolate this backwards and you will find that at one time all the galaxies where on top of each other.
@doltBmB No, it doesn't. My goodness me, is this some sort of advanced satire? Or maybe you get a thrill out of pretending to be stupid. But, just for fun, explain why relativity prohibits the doppler shifting of light, DESPITE the fact that it is used on a regular basis in the form of light guns and so forth.
thumbs up what u forgot to say is that HALTON C, ARP found it and was forced to resign from his permanent position at the CARNEGIE institute of Washington Observatory and threaten that if he doesnt change his line of research they will take away his telescope time
Robots hasn't any Intelligent Designers. Billions of years ago a Big Bang occurred in a pile of iron and silicon and proto-robots evolved. And humanoid robots evolved and built carbon based laboratories. And they grew prototypes of all organic life in them and populated Earth with them. Some humans escaped and now they are watching walking robots on YouTube. Sound rediculous? Well, that's how Mud to Man Evolution sounds. I believe in Theistic Evolution.
@JojobasWitness Isaac Asimov's essay "The Relativity of Wrong" (easy Google) really should be required reading for YT posters. Generally, theories are found to be incomplete, & are extended to cover the data, as Einstein extended Newtonian Dynamics, sometimes opening up new vistas. Was Newton "wrong"? Well, we sent men to the moon without bothering with relativity. But we need GR to explain that niggling divergence in Mercury's orbit. Newton's gravity is simply a special case of GR for low V.
@toobsucker I figured Eric Lerner would probably surface at some point. Way back when, in 1991, before the COBE data arrived, Hannes Alfvén's rendition of a steady-state cosmology enjoyed a brief revival, as the CMB was considered to be too smooth. Lerner's book "The Big Bang Never Happened" was released in that era. But now we have COBE, WMAP, and soon Planck. The IEEE will publish the occasional paper on PC. But even that is rare. PC died a quick death in 1993. But some people still cling.
@sbergman27 "That 2.7K, and the fluctuations therein, are some of the most compelling evidence supporting the BB model that one could imagine"
Why then does discover magazine say the current model had to be modified by [imaginary] inflation
"1980s Linde and Tufts University physicist Alex Vilenkin had come up with a dramatic new twist that remains nearly as controversial now as it was then. They argued that inflation was not a one-off event but an ongoing process throughout the universe,"
@toobsucker Far be it from me to contradict Discover Magazine, of all sources. I cower in the shadow of their greatness. OK. So maybe I don't. Inflation is not quite so nailed down as the rest of the Cosmology. There are competing hypotheses which use different constants. What the data says is that some version is probably the right one. Inflation is not exactly controversial, today. Following it into its Multiverse implications is. We have no data either supporting or denying that prediction.
@toobsucker How so? The 2.7K CMB is perfectly consistent with BB. Consider this from the WMAP 7 yr mission report:
'WMAP data place tight constraints on the hypothesized burst of growth in the first trillionth of a second of the universe, called “inflation”, when ripples in the very fabric of space may have been created. The 7-year data provide compelling evidence that the large-scale fluctuations are slightly more intense than the small-scale ones, a subtle prediction of many inflation models.'
@sbergman27 "'WMAP data place tight constraints on the hypothesized burst of growth in the first trillionth of a second of the universe, called “inflation”
Inflation is an imaginary variable invented to fix a dogmatic theory that dose not work. Watch this 3 min video . watch?v=tHVLSMAJmPg
Discover magazine also disagrees with you. Google "Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory"
@toobsucker Then please explain how the consensus cosmology was able to make such accurate predictions regarding the distribution of angular size of the CMB anisotropies? We have actually witnessed, live, the exact fingerprint of the acoustic oscillations predicted by BB. In light of current data, Chown's "arguments" are pretty anemic. Brian Greene has an excellent new book out regarding several Multiverse concepts. A Multiverse is not at all in conflict with BB. Did you think it was?
@sbergman27 "Then please explain how the consensus cosmology was able to make such accurate predictions regarding the distribution of angular size of the CMB anisotropies?"
Cosmology is beyond my area of study right now. All I can do it listen to why so many physicists disagree with the BBl. I do know Einstein originally believed in a static universe and it was redshift I believe that made him change his mind. Some physicist now say they have proof redshift does not necessarily equate distance
@toobsucker What percentage of physicists do you think disagree with the the λCDM model? Certainly, the the data we have supports it. Would it be nicer if it were simpler? Yes, I suppose. But a model should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. What do you have to say about the preponderance of data which supports the Hubble Law? And then we have this lone, outlying point. If there was a pile of data on one side, and a smaller pile on the other? But there's not.
@sbergman27 ". A Multiverse is not at all in conflict with BB. Did you think it was?"
The multiverse is an unfalsifiable hypothesis that is needed to explain away the teleological argument. If the universe did not have the precise order it did, there would be no need for the multiverse hypothesis
@toobsucker Not teleological. More a conflict with the Copernican Principle. There are about 9 different species of possible Multiverse that I am aware of, which are logical consequences of theories which explain the known data very well. Most of those are unfalsifiable in the near term, yes. But not all. You might (or might not) enjoy this: watch?v=fJqpNudIss4
@sbergman27 "What percentage of physicists do you think disagree with the the λCDM model? Certainly, the the data we have supports it."
I believe in a BB of sorts, I do not believe our universe is eternal. However I disagree it was an explosion caused by heat that coincidentally "just happened" to hit all the right constants. as a theist I believe God created them. The theists hypothesis does not need to invent multiple unfalsifiable inflation events to explain the uniform temperature.
It's amazing how you folks can make up something more complex than the Universe itself, this magical "god" of yours, say "He did it.", and step back thinking that you've explained something.
The apparent fine tuning of constants is a valid issue. But introducing a magical being (for which you have no evidence) only makes the problem far worse. There are far better ways to deal with the issue.
@sbergman27 "The apparent fine tuning of constants is a valid issue. But introducing a magical being (for which you have no evidence) only makes the problem far worse"
For what reason do you assume "magic" is needed to create a universe?. Intelligent foresight is all that is needed to create systems with fixed parameters. Atheists ASSUME no cause or reason for this event, theists ASSUME a pre-existing intelligence was the cause. Theists have logical inferences, atheists have no inferences.
@toobsucker You really have no conception of what a non-explanation your magical super-being is, do you? So... how did your invisible friend come into existence? By what mechanism. Please be specific. Far from explaining anything, you now have a much thornier issue to explain. However, my patience for dealing with the bizarre psychologies of people who have been brainwashed from birth to accept such an outré belief system as yours, is not unlimited. Ultimately, it's a waste of time.
@sbergman27 "how did your invisible friend come into existence?
There is a reason why atheistic science must adhere to ridiculous "something from nothing" stance. Because once the "eternal" is allowed to exist, God becomes inevitable. If eternal usable energy (in some form) exists, the chances of a life/awareness arising (abiogenesis of God) is 1/1 because it has "forever" in which to do so. Any life form that exists without entropy, must become all knowing thus all powerful.
@toobsucker You are essentially talking about "Boltzmann Brains". Statistically, it's far more likely that your brain formed spontaneously from a random fluctuation than for the world, people, your imaginary "god", or even the rest of your body to have done so. So even using your flawed Boltzmann Brain approach, it's *far* more likely that your "god" does not exist, and that you are simply a disembodied brain having the thoughts that you are right now. BTW, I don't believe in Boltzmann Brains.
@sbergman27 "You are essentially talking about "Boltzmann Brains"...BTW, I don't believe in Boltzmann Brains"
"Boltzmann Brains" has "Boltzmann brain paradox" which is entropy, which is also the main paradox of biological evolution. My "abiogenesis of God hypothesis" takes place before the universe & entropy exists therefore is not subject to this paradox
Atheism is illogical from every angle its analyzed. By what reasoning do you use to put limitations on a life forms attributes?
@sbergman27 "It's amazing how you folks can make up something more complex than the Universe itself, this magical "god" of yours..,and step back thinking that you've explained something"
What is amazing is "rational minds" that can believe the myriad of coincidences that make life possible can just *POP* into existence without a reason or cause. You fail to consider the fact all intelligently designed systems absolutely require fixed parameters to function. Both the universe & biology have them
@sbergman27 "Inflation is not quite so nailed down as the rest of the Cosmology. There are competing hypotheses which use different constants. What the data says is that some version is probably the right one"
Is not this what physicists call the "fudge factor", where one must imagine without evidence, that a variable exists just to keep the theory from failing. This "inflation" appears to be a necessary invention to keep the theory from falsification just as P.E. did with gradualism
@toobsucker How's life back in 1991? That is where you're posting from, isn't it? In a year or 2 (for you) the COBE data will be coming in. And then WMAP. And predictions made by the Inflation model will be verified. We, the people of 2011, have already seen all that, and are waiting to see if Planck verifies the predicted 'swirl pattern' in the CMB polarization.
I do believe in "multiverses", however I believe (as all theists do) these are actually other dimensions not other universes, and these other dimensions are filled with sentient life.
@toobsucker You speak for all theists, do you? My my. Until you define "dimension" and "Universe" your statement has little meaning. However, I do not "believe in" the Multiverse. I see the various Multiverse proposals as predictions of successful theories which are (mostly) untestable for now. Once (if ever) the predictions are tested, there will be no need to "believe" or not, as we'll have actual evidence yea or nay.
@sbergman27 It's amazing how you folks can make up something more complex than the Universe itself, this magical "god" of yours..,and step back thinking that you've explained something"
What is amazing is "rational minds" that can believe the myriad of coincidences that make life possible can just *POP* into existence without a reason or cause. You fail to consider the fact all intelligently designed systems absolutely require fixed parameters to function. Both the universe & biology have them
@sbergman27 "Until you define "dimension" and "Universe" your statement has little meaning"
I should not have to explain what should simply understood. Its is another unseen reality.
"However, I do not "believe in" the Multiverse"
If you don't "believe" in a multiverse then you must believe in only one universe. And you must believe a one time BB was phenomenally lucky to create all the variables for life to exist. Atheists physicist Weinberg finds it easier to "believe" in many universes
@toobsucker Your grasp of logic is pretty tenuous, isn't it? I take no position on the matter in the absence of experimental data. Certainly, several types of Multiverse are suggested by current theories which have survived experimental testing. But I don't just decide to believe in something because I want to believe it. I wait for the data. A multiverse is one way to explain the values of our constants. It is also possible that the values had to be what they are, for more fundamental reasons.
@sbergman27 "You really have no conception of what a non-explanation your magical super-being is, do you? So... how did your invisible friend come into existence? By what mechanism. Please be specific"
Quit funny. You say I have no concept of what a non-explanation is and the only explanation the atheist has is the causeless universe without a mechanism. How is it theists must explain the cause and mechanisms (which is simply an intelligence) but atheists need no cause or mechanism?
@sbergman27 "Your grasp of logic is pretty tenuous, isn't it?"
My grasp of logic in tenuous?. It is you that believes systems that requires fixed parameters to function can evolve. It is only deeply flawed liberal logic that can believe a system that is dependent on100% system evolution, can produce elements that can not evolve. Biological systems have many elements (UCE) that can not be changed. If evolution is valid the entire system must be subject to change. Yet the UCE can not evolve
@sbergman27 "Not teleological. More a conflict with the Copernican Principle"
Google "God or a Multiverse Does modern cosmology force us to choose between a creator and a system of parallel universes?" Mark Vernon
Atheistic physicist Steven Weinberg said "If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning ... I think you'd really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse."
The multiverse is only needed to explain the reason why God/I.D. is not necessary
@toobsucker (Cont'd) Addendum: I had already commented in the Chown thread, as you may have noticed. More data is on the way. By all accounts the Planck data is of remarkable quality. The instrument is performing at or beyond expectations. One big thing we can expect from Planck is high quality data on the polarization of the CMB. BB/Inflation predicts a specific "swirl" pattern to the polarization. Out of curiosity.. what cosmology are you selling? You apparently believe in some "alternative".
@toobsucker (cont'd) So Inflation, which predicts a very smooth CMB, is on solid ground. Furthermore, BB makes some very specific and unlikely predictions regarding the power function of the angular sizes of the small fluctuations which exist. & WMAP observations match so perfectly that you can hardly even see any divergence.. or even the tiny error bars on the graph. That 2.7K, and the fluctuations therein, are some of the most compelling evidence supporting the BB model that one could imagine.
Yes it`s between the Super Clusters of Galaxies that the Universe is only Exspanding becos thier are huge voids @ Dark Energy ( anti gravity ) Rules but within the Super Clusters Dark Matter @ Gravity Rules,but i do propose an idea that the Universe did not Exspand from a point the size of an atom but the size of a Galaxy i.e. like throwing a bucket of pop corn into space that is exspanding @ also each pop corn is exspanding. Gavin Kimpton New Zealand Part Time Cosmologist - please reply back.
What an earth are you guys trying to say - the facts are simple,the Universe is not Static i. e. non moving becouse it is full of Dynamic Energy,if it was static dynamic gravity would couse the Universe to emplode in on itself - The Big Crunch so be very happy it`s Exspanding - u have a ran away idea.Anyone please reply to my simple but powerfull logic.
@25royroy It's unclear that the Big Freeze that we currently see in our future is much better than a big crunch. Both result in an eventual increase in entropy to maximum. That said, the cosmological constant does appear to be winning over attractive gravity. There is at least 1 viable cyclical cosmology, the Ekpyrotic, (N. Turok, et. al.) which gets around the entropy problem. Haven't heard much since 2008. Planck mission is supposed to shed light. 7 yr WMAP data may already have. Not sure.
The creator of this "film" is a fucking dolt. plain and simple. You cant look mathematical fact in the face and call bullshit without looking like an idiot. Congratulations... IDIOT.
What is most puzzling aspect of this case is that the two galaxies and the filaments are on the same order of magnitude of Redshift, whereas the stars on the edge of each galaxies, are at different order of magnitude, lik a pattern from Left to Right: Up D Up D Up :: W
Look that means nothing. It only means there is an explanation waiting to come. The evidence for a cosmic burst is just too overwhelming. What it really was? And how it really fanned out? Is so vastly complicated that we aren't half way there to fully explaining every facet of the expansion. Brian Greene had it right when he showed the dog in front of a blackboard of equations. So do we "not" fully understand the universe in the same way. But...we evolve. Is evolution energy's desire? Humm?
Anyone how claims science covers up conflicting evidence and theories is a moron who knows nothing about science. Science is the pursuit of proving yourself wrong first and foremost.
@Rhys17 That is how Science should be. But the Scientific Comity considers most facts to be mysterious and surprising. Meanwhile they constantly make up speculation and mathematical equations that defy the most basic laws of physics and mathematical fundamentals. (Everything exploding from nothing.) That's Creation Myth not Science.
@wavepsychic You have a HUGE misunderstanding on the big bang lmao. First of all it was not an explosion at all. It was an expansion. That right there already disproves your whole statement and shows your lack of intelligence on the subject.
@MW2Addiction Wrong. I know the entire belief of the big bang I heard it all before. Every version of it. And it was Originally an explosion from the god particle until they changed they hypothesis because the matter and energy in the Universe is lumpy.
Anyway belief what so ever you want I'm not going to get into a religious argument with faithers like you. I don't care what you don't know.
@wavepsychic Well you obviously don't know anything about the big bang and your just speaking out of pure ignorance. Because it is NOT an explosion its a rapid expansion. Thats why the universe as of now is expanding. And we have proof that it is. The red shift in galaxies clearly tell us that galaxies are moving away from us therefore they are expanding.
@wavepsychic They start with speculation then they see if the mathematics of the new theory coincide with the mathematics of established ones. Scientists don't constantly make up mathematical equations that defy the laws of physics. The big bang doesn't state that everything came from nothing, that's impossible. Stephen Hawking has been consistently criticized for his black hole theory because it's states that everything inside simply disappears. The big bang theory says that all matter
@Rhys17 existed in one spot and in a very different state. What happened before the big band or what set it of? any scientist will give you a big resounding "I don't know". There's nothing wrong with the knowledge scientists have. It's the knowledge everyday people have of scientists that's wrong.
@Rhys17 Look I really do not wish to continue this parade of arguments with you people. I have heard one to many stupid big bang theories. Just the fact that there are so many should lead you to the conclusion that none of them are correct or Science. If you want to believe it then fine but I do not have any reason to believe in this so I am going to continue to believe the theory that I think makes the most sense. Have a good day.
@wavepsychic How many big bang theories are there ? Ive only heard one big bang theory that keeps getting refined when more evidence becomes available, last time i checked thats how science works. Id love to hear the theory that makes more sense than the big bang theory
I have seen just one argument for why the Big Bang Theory is wrong and thousands of others which says it is right. Now for the one argument you provide us in this video - and I guess there are many more - the problem is that our observation and calculation of the redshift is wrong. Our observations of the universe are distorted and the lightspeed depends on whatever is in the way. It is not all vacuum up there. What we need is better calculations.
The fraud is applying the Doppler effect to light which can not be be stretched or condensed, it can only fade. To think we can see galaxies 80,000 light years away or 480 quadrillion miles away with zero distortion is simply foolishness. The popularity of the big bang is based on the universe being create by a poof for no reason at all... meaning there has to be a God, after all science proves it.
@jaop00092 "is just a theory" - please understand that in science the use of the word theory is not the same as that of layman's use. Theory in science means that it is a model that explains the facts - it is a higher level than fact
@TRP360 It is not an idea it is an explanation of the observable phenomena. It is higher than a fact in that it not only explains the facts but is used to predict future natural phenomena correctly. In that way it is definitely more than a fact, eg, Theory of Gravity - fact is that objects fall to the ground - the theory of gravity goes beyond this and explains why the fact happens and predicts how gravity will affect other objects.
@asgardian001 It is only one of many very different ideas used to attempt to explain our observations. the big bang has not correctly predicted anything in itself, predictions of known physics have been applied to the big bang as if it did occur, this is only a comparison based on IF it occurred.
@TRP360 I should have further explained my previous posts - Theories can definitely be wrong - eg, Lamarckian Theory of Inheritance vs Theory of Evolution and thus get demoted to discredited Theories. This may happen with the Big Bang Theory in time. I was of the belief that the Big Bang Theory correctly explains the Red Shift that is observed but also predicts that it will continue (dependant upon the mass of the universe and Dark Matter actually existing)???
@asgardian001 Dark matter, (or elements in space too far from a light source to be illuminated hence not seen by humans) may very well be the cause of the distortion we see without realizing there is a distortion. The mass of the known universe will increase when we see further into space, which will be within the next couple of years. I don't remember exactly when the newest telescope will be operational but I recall it is not too far in the distance future, it will be interesting though.
@jaop00092 Yea that's a load of ignorance in 1 statement. Theory, in science, is backed up by amazing facts and evidence to support it. So saying that its just a theory makes you an idiot. Because it clearly shows you don't know what the word theory means.
The theory of general relativity is about gravity. You don't question if gravity exists now do you? You know for sure that gravity exists.
None of this disproves the big bang theory. The space between two individual galaxies is not nearly the space that scientists refer as to be expanding. The explanation goes around a simple idea. Inside a cluster of galaxies, gravity rules and galaxies run against each other – all the time. The space that scientists refer to as be expanding is the space between clusters, not individual galaxies.
@wavepsychic Yea cause you know just ignore the fact that the universe is expanding and that all the galaxies have a red shift which means they are expanding away from us. If you go back they should all come back to 1 singularity all together. Coincidence? I think not. Just ignore the fact that there is cosmic background microwave radiation that gives evidence in favor the of the big bang. And this is just 2 pieces of evidence that I have listed. There is tons more if you would do your research.
@wavepsychic We have plenty of evidence that the Big Bang happened. It's not a theory someone just pulled out of their hat, in fact scientists absolutely did not want to accept it at first, they had to be reluctantly dragged to it kicking and screaming--but they eventually arrived there because all the evidence from astronomy, astrophysics, nuclear physics, quantum physics, relativity, Newtonian mechanics, the red shift of galaxies, the cosmic...
@wavepsychic ...microwave background radiation (which is an actual picture of the fireball left over from the Big Bang that we can now SEE), deep space observations of the earliest galaxies, and lots of other data all converge stubbornly on the same conclusion: that the universe at one time had to be compressed into an incredibly small, hot, dense singularity, which erupted to form energy, matter, space, time, and the physical forces and laws as we know them (none of which existed in that...
@wavepsychic Energy and Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, it has always existed. Now honestly nobody knows where the singularity came from. Some people believe it didn't come from anything that it was always there. Some people believe the universe is an un ending process of creating universe after universe and it kept going until it finally fit the criteria for life to begin. Its kind of like playing the lottery, you keep playing and playing until finally you win.
@wavepsychic You also gotta think that before this singularity there was nothing. Before it there was nothing cause time its self didn't exist. When it rapidly expanded time its self began. Now you may ask, what caused it to expand. Some scientist believe it was 2 membranes that collided which caused the expansion. It would make sense because if this were to happen there would be massive amounts of energy, matter, etc. all being released at once.
@wavepsychic I never said it was empirical data. I clearly stated that no one knows the answer to your question. However, there are many different theories and suggestions that could be possibilities. However, they are not confirmed due to the lack of evidence.
@MW2Addiction Science - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Honestly dude the big bang isn't Science. None of the theories explain where everything comes from. Be it nothingness exploded, pure energy expanded or god particle exploded/expanded nor string theory. Because where would the strings/pure energy come from? It just doesn't explain. So what's with the non-empirical blind faith bud?
@wavepsychic All evidence that we have found like the cosmic background microwave radiation, red shift, etc. points toward the big bang. Stop trying to make it seem like its not science when there is pure evidence and facts of science that points toward it being true.
@MW2Addiction The Microwave radiation supports the Electric Universe model as well not just the big bang. In fact the predictions made by the Big Bangers was that the Universe would be hotter closer to the big bang and have an average temperature of 50 degrees K. In fact the Universe if uniformly 3 degrees. The Red shifts does not mean that we are at the center of the Universe with the most red shifted galaxies being the most distant!
@wavepsychic Nobody ever claimed that we are at the center of the universe. Thats absurd, and anybody who claims such a thing is completely illogical. The reason why galaxies have a red shift is because the universe is expanding therefore making the galaxies move further apart from each other. Kind of like when you inflate a balloon.
@MW2Addiction They did claim that! Hubble's Law claims that because the most distant galaxies are the most red shifted then we are right now at the center of the Universe where the Big Bang happened. And the Universe ends 13 trillion light years in all directions that Hubble Space Telescope sees.
I am glad that you agree that the most distant objects are red shifted because space is expanding away from us is illogical. Now just apply logic to the rest of the big expansion.
@wavepsychic The red shift shows us our horizon. If we were to measure the red shift from any other galaxy, we would see the same thing that we do here on earth. We are not the center of the galaxy but we are the center of our horizon.
@85zeitgeist Wrong Zeitgeist. Why then do the Astrophysicists say that the Universe is 13 trillion years old? Because it would take light 13 trillion years to reach this horizon? If space is expanding from a POINT and we know this because we are looking from this point and all galaxies are moving away that implies that our galaxy is not moving in any direction. And if space was expanding why would Galactic clusters not be moving apart? only space between GC's is expanding. That makes no sense!
@wavepsychic First off, 13 trillion years is incorrect. The age of the universe is estimated quite accurately to be around 13.72 billion years old. Second, the redshift varies between different galaxies depending on many factors. And we're also moving. Thirdly, gravity on a galactic scale is what holds clusters together for the time being. Eventually that will change. Anything else, young grasshopper?
@wavepsychic ...small, hot, dense state, since the mathematics that describe such things say that physical laws all break down there or become unified in that dimensionless, massless, timeless singularity, so any statements about causality or conservation of whatever are essentially meaningless at that point).
@fiesta181 You are a complete moron! This has to do with redshift which is what the big bang theory is based on! The standard model uses redshift to determine distance and velocity of an object so if you have several objects connected to one another with vastly different redshifts it absolutely does invalidate the big bang at-least the foundation it is based on! Also gravity is the weakest force known so it can not rule anything besides gravity is an electrical phenomenon nincompoop!
@yahshuah29 It's not individual galaxies. It's actually clusters of galaxies that are traveling apart. A cluster of galaxies is an amount of several galaxies held together by the force of gravity. Also, the Standard Model is a theory of quantum physics; this is astronomy.
@fiesta181 The standard model is a theory of physics man you need to do some actual reading! Gravity is a theory in physics again do some reading! This is not astronomy its cosmology and physics is a component of COSMOLOGY please man do some reading ok im not going to call you dumb or ignorant because that is obvious by your comments I just ask that you know what you are talking about. People take this stuff very seriously & you might get hurt with the 5th grade rebuttals is all im sayin bro!
@yahshuah29*The standard model is a theory of physics*
Lol. I see what you say. I was just picking with you because you used the expression 'Standard Model' (which is a theory, obviously) to refer to the TECHNIQUE - that scientists use to measure speed and distance, known as red shift of light waves.
@yahshuah29 fiesta181 is correct. This is merely an interesting possible anomaly. Certainly no invalidation of the Consensus Cosmology. Observed Z is a composite of cosmological Z and regular Doppler shift. The velocity variations are relatively high. But only about 2% of c, well within possibility. Also, it's not completely established that the objects *are* part of the same filament. It's more complicated than that. Difficulties in measurement, etc. There *may* be something important here.
@sbergman27 Read the rest of the posts & then tell me if you want to latch on to this guy? With that said I find you to be more intellectually honest & would be inclined to at least take you seriously!
@yahshuah29 I glanced over the thread & he's right about G ruling in local clusters, but expansion winning over longer distances. In general, EM is only significant on very small scales since + & - balance nearly perfectly. Look. Z has been measured for countless objects. NGC7603 is a single possible anomaly, with lots of uncertainties & possible explanations. Hubble's Law is in no danger from it. Though it's been a favorite cherry-pick of pseudoscience groups like the Cult of Plasma Cosmology.
Nope. The CMB conclusively demonstrates that the BB model is correct at least back to the end of Inflation. & very strongly suggests that 1 of the Inflation models is correct. Please review the WMAP 7 year report. & remember that it is an actual microwave photograph of our U at 0.0027% its present age. Add to that the wealth of collateral data, e.g. GR being tested every day, & the BB model is revealed to be on *very* solid ground.
Good one! Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata! this is a good discussion as long as we abide to the cardinal rule of science i.e. "Always consider alternative explanations, never accept anything at face value". In the meantime it is still the Big Bang theory for me, CMB and Hubble's complimented it.. ah, redshift is anomalous? so they use parallax in calculating the distance? Pythagorean is a theory too! will never be a law! that is what science is. :-)
Whoa my bad! I found out that even the parallax function of the state of the art GAIA satellite is limited to 32000 light-years only and you are talking about millions light-years! you didn't mention that the uncertainty of the redshift increases with distance and that the legitimate cosmologists use a ladder or set of methods in determining distances to astronomical objects.
If the big bang is wrong, then explain to me how they determine the universe's age. last time i checked, they measure the universe's age by using the observations of the wavelengths of stars's light and even the CMBR and by using extrapolation. The CMBR is an echo of an event that occurred a long time ago. This event is the quantum fluctuations that birthed our universe and thus the big bang. The Big Bang is not a model of the birth; it's a model of the evolution of our universe.
@FallofDarkness55 Here's my problem though - The big bang is talked about like it is a irrefutable fact. Stations like the history channel and many videos here on youtube just state it like it is as real as the screen your looking at. My point is, the big bang it is not always talked about and presented as our universe's evolution (as you suggest) but rather it's birth.
@Lisztman88 In order to understand the birth of our universe, one needs to study theoretical physics. The Big Bang is a popular conventional idea in modern physics and cosmology, and because of this the big bang can not be used to explain what really happened at time zero. The laws of physics collapses at this point. The math is an utter disaster; luckily theoretical physics concepts like string theory and m-theory offers an explanation for the birth of our universe.
This must be true because it's not only on youtube, it even got an earie piano score. Seriously... I'm not a scientist. What exactly is this supposed to prove?
Is it possible that the light from one galaxy could be lensed significantly more than the other by a dense accumulation of dark matter, which would distort the redshift of the two galaxies relative to one another? or is the percieved differences in distance too great?
@hattonhaha Do you know what "sun dogs" are? Fata Morgana? Do you know how optic fibres work? Do you know that radio signals can be "tunneled" in layers of gas?
This can happen in small scale, it can happen in grand scale.
No am not a scientist,or a scientific pro so dnt be an arse, I was just saying unless u can test an idea u cant really prove it,it would be theory wouldnt it?
@britishgoose01 Don't say "just a theory". It shows you don't know what a scientific theory is. It's not like common vernacular. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena. And no we don't need a ship to go see it up close to know it's real. If the Big Bang is incorrect that would be interesting...show me. This video is week.
@britishgoose01 but we can take observations of nearby objects and effects, annalyse the underlying patters and extrapolate the results to determine the nature of objects at much greater distances in such a way that although we can't observe it directly, we can say 100% that it is the case.
@britishgoose01 but we can take observations of nearby objects and effects, analyse the underlying patters and extrapolate the results to determine the nature of objects at much greater distances in such a way that although we can't observe it directly, we can say 100% that it is the case.
The "Big Bang" is nothing more than a theory...worse than that, it's an incredibly bogus theory. A bang came from nothing...and suddenly everything was created from nothing. I don't buy it. As I don't buy the theory that the cosmos is expanding. Based on the speed of light, what we eventually see, is, and always has been there. It's the light that shows us what is and always has been out there on the far reaches of the cosmos. If anything, light is expanding.
DannyBruiz 1 week ago
And...I look forward to all your silly responses, or not.
Thaimiles 3 weeks ago
Oh, sure! That video proves a lot...NOT! Guess you have to be a 'rocket scientist' to get it. Who really cares?!? Seriously. What does it matter if there was or wasn't a Big Bang? Not losing sleep over here, HaHa!
Thaimiles 3 weeks ago
Yes Hubble's law has failed. Red shift is a result of the lens effect of the dark matter of our galaxy and in the case you are citing perhaps the dark matter in the galaxy you are looking at is also red shifting the smaller black hole to make it appear even further away, when in fact it is within the same dark matter for that galaxy. I would think that your evidence would support my idea of dark matter having an index of refraction as show by the Opera experiment.
DiogenesofCalgary 4 weeks ago
www_thunderbolts_info/tpod/2011/arch11/110329redshifts_htm
...replace _ with .
scowi3 1 month ago
Btw, i'd say this observation makes for a more damning contradiction of big bang theory...
www_thunderbolts_infotpod/2011/arch11/110329redshifts_htm
scowi3 1 month ago
The big bang theory relies on the assumption that galactic redshifts are a doppler effect caused by expanding space. It is quite possible, however, that they are instead a scattering effect. Light may simply be losing energy from it's interaction with matter in the intergalactic medium. In this case, the high redshifts of quasars would be partly due to the dense envelope of gases that encompass them, giving them an intrinsic non-cosmological (i.e. non-distance-related) redshift.
scowi3 1 month ago
Now that I think of it, the big bang theory actually sounds quite silly. I read somewhere that it was once proposed, similarly, in a theory espoused by a Catholic clergyman. It is childlike and fantasy oriented to think that magic can happen where things spontaneously appear (ie - the big bang). Science itself has disproved this type of magical behavior - magicians cant really find a relevant audience anymore, either can big bang theorists.
Ech0es71 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why is the Big Bang and God's existence always being argued here? Neither statement disproves the other. If you are going by the "day" bit the Hebrew word is "Yown" which means a period of time to be specified. The ARGUMENT is if there was intelligence behind the formation of the universe. That is a purely speculative question and a waste of time to argue about. Many theories are obviously wrong and they will continue to be flawed until we know everything, which will be never.
jtd10902 2 months ago
What a terribly misinformed video.
BlankVellum 2 months ago 2
@BlankVellum You want to say that BB theory is confirmed theory?
gfan83 2 months ago
@gfan83 As confirmed as a scientific theory is possible to be, yes. But perhaps you have a better explanation for the following: the CMB, gravitational lensing, primordial nucleosynthesis, Hubble constant, galactic evolution and distribution, to name but a few.
BlankVellum 2 months ago
@BlankVellum Do you know that redshift is detected between two unmoving objects on earth? What do you thing about nature of that fenomena?
gfan83 2 months ago
@gfan83 No, redshift is not detected between 2 unmoving objects on Earth. They can be used for terrestrial objects moving relative to each other, such as Doppler radar and radar guns. Unless you want to rewrite the laws of physics, you will have to try much harder than that.
BlankVellum 2 months ago
@BlankVellum There is redshift betwen 2 unmoving objects. and that redshift explained by gravitational shift.
gfan83 2 months ago
@gfan83 You seem deeply confused here. Between what two unmoving objects are you referring to? What was the name of the experiment? What peer reviewed article was it published in?
BlankVellum 2 months ago
@BlankVellum Just search in wiki - Gravitational redshift.
gfan83 2 months ago
@gfan83 Yes, gravitational redshift is fairly well known. It is predicted by relativity, which is the central theoretical underpinning of the big bang. I'm not sure what your point is.
BlankVellum 2 months ago
@BlankVellum As confirmation biased as it is possible for any theory to be you mean. Just because you have one interpretation doesn't mean it's right. What a terribly misinformed world view.
doltBmB 1 month ago
@doltBmB But it isn't just one interpretation. How incredibly ignorant you are. Perhaps you can offer another valid and robust scientific theory which explains the following: The CMB, galaxy distribution and composition, primordial nucleosynthesis (ie why there is no fewer than 24% helium in any galaxy, a major prediction of the big bang theory), galactic redshift, gravitational lensing...There are so many observations I could mention where the big bang passes with flying colours.
BlankVellum 1 month ago
@BlankVellum BB doesn't explain redshift, it doesn't explain anything. It's fundamentally retarded and self contradictory. I can't say what a lot of those things are, but if you aren't allowed to think other than the high king BlankVellum says how will we ever find out?
doltBmB 1 month ago
@doltBmB Oh, I was hoping for an actual argument. Instead I'm left with a stupid troll who doesn't actually know what the fuck he's talking about. So let me explain this to you in simple terms, so that you'll understand: The big bang theory (to be specific, the Lambda CDM model of cosmology) explains a vast amount of observations that have been made. It certainly explains redshift, and asserting that it doesn't, without giving a scientific reason, makes you look fundamentally absurd.
BlankVellum 1 month ago
@doltBmB So, unless you actually have a scientifically valid explanation as to why the standard model of cosmology is incorrect, complete with robust data, theory and peer reviewed backing, then your incoherent, ignorant whining will go ignored. Does that sound agreeable to you cupcake?
BlankVellum 1 month ago
@BlankVellum "Unless it's in the bible it's not true."
That's what you basically just said.
doltBmB 1 month ago
@doltBm Oh fuck me, are you really this cognitively obtuse? What the fuck does the Bible have to do with anything I just said little troll?
BlankVellum 1 month ago
@BlankVellum Maybe if you weren't so far up your own ass you'd know what I meant.
doltBmB 1 month ago
@doltBmB Right seeing as you are so cognitively obtuse as to not have the slightest fucking clue what a reasonable discussion entails, I'm going to refrain from responding to you. If you actually have an argument, rather than offering up completely fucking insane non-sequiturs,let me know darling.To say something like 'the big bang doesn't explain redshift' and act as if you haven't said something as unbelievably ignorant as you just did,is to warrant the ridicule you are know receiving
BlankVellum 1 month ago
@BlankVellum It is self evident that bb does not explain redshift. It is fundamentally self contradictory on the matter.
doltBmB 1 month ago
@doltBmB No, it is not self evident at all. Saying something wrong over and over again does not make it less wrong by the way. The observed shift of galaxies towards the red end of the spectrum over a suitably large distance (many megaparsecs) implies the universe is expanding. Galaxies twice as far away from ours are redshifted twice as much, implying the universe is expanding. Extrapolate this backwards and you will find that at one time all the galaxies where on top of each other.
BlankVellum 1 month ago
@BlankVellum Think for a second. Here's a hint: relativity prohibits doppler shifting of light.
doltBmB 1 month ago
@doltBmB No, it doesn't. My goodness me, is this some sort of advanced satire? Or maybe you get a thrill out of pretending to be stupid. But, just for fun, explain why relativity prohibits the doppler shifting of light, DESPITE the fact that it is used on a regular basis in the form of light guns and so forth.
BlankVellum 1 month ago
I'd have to say...
watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0&feature=related
probablechoices 2 months ago
I studied intensely and spread knowledge and wanted to find a way out. Did it collapse, too? Self comes back in the past and start it again.
猛烈に勉強して知見を広め打開策を見付けたかった。それも崩れたか、過去に戻ってでもやり直す。
wizardmori 2 months ago
also....he discovered ngc7603 in the 60's ...if that means NEW to you
him80us 3 months ago
thumbs up what u forgot to say is that HALTON C, ARP found it and was forced to resign from his permanent position at the CARNEGIE institute of Washington Observatory and threaten that if he doesnt change his line of research they will take away his telescope time
him80us 3 months ago
Robots hasn't any Intelligent Designers. Billions of years ago a Big Bang occurred in a pile of iron and silicon and proto-robots evolved. And humanoid robots evolved and built carbon based laboratories. And they grew prototypes of all organic life in them and populated Earth with them. Some humans escaped and now they are watching walking robots on YouTube. Sound rediculous? Well, that's how Mud to Man Evolution sounds. I believe in Theistic Evolution.
kdc43 3 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Both the big bang and god are bullshit
nstaley1111 5 months ago
@nstaley1111
Jayybumm 4 months ago
I found the comments here funny. Any atheist that believes in Big Bang Creationism is a moron.
orrerystar 5 months ago
i feel dumber for having watched this... :(
neotizok 5 months ago
This is an additional proof that theists are ignorant, arrogant and idiotic.
ES350ES350 5 months ago
@JojobasWitness Isaac Asimov's essay "The Relativity of Wrong" (easy Google) really should be required reading for YT posters. Generally, theories are found to be incomplete, & are extended to cover the data, as Einstein extended Newtonian Dynamics, sometimes opening up new vistas. Was Newton "wrong"? Well, we sent men to the moon without bothering with relativity. But we need GR to explain that niggling divergence in Mercury's orbit. Newton's gravity is simply a special case of GR for low V.
sbergman27 5 months ago
@sbergman27
Watch "The Big Bang Never Happened" on youtube. There are many physicists that disagree with it.
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker I figured Eric Lerner would probably surface at some point. Way back when, in 1991, before the COBE data arrived, Hannes Alfvén's rendition of a steady-state cosmology enjoyed a brief revival, as the CMB was considered to be too smooth. Lerner's book "The Big Bang Never Happened" was released in that era. But now we have COBE, WMAP, and soon Planck. The IEEE will publish the occasional paper on PC. But even that is rare. PC died a quick death in 1993. But some people still cling.
sbergman27 5 months ago
@sbergman27 "That 2.7K, and the fluctuations therein, are some of the most compelling evidence supporting the BB model that one could imagine"
Why then does discover magazine say the current model had to be modified by [imaginary] inflation
"1980s Linde and Tufts University physicist Alex Vilenkin had come up with a dramatic new twist that remains nearly as controversial now as it was then. They argued that inflation was not a one-off event but an ongoing process throughout the universe,"
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker Far be it from me to contradict Discover Magazine, of all sources. I cower in the shadow of their greatness. OK. So maybe I don't. Inflation is not quite so nailed down as the rest of the Cosmology. There are competing hypotheses which use different constants. What the data says is that some version is probably the right one. Inflation is not exactly controversial, today. Following it into its Multiverse implications is. We have no data either supporting or denying that prediction.
sbergman27 5 months ago
The temperature everywhere in the universe is 2.7 degrees above absolute zero (-270.7 degrees Centigrade).
This should be impossible with the big bang model
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker How so? The 2.7K CMB is perfectly consistent with BB. Consider this from the WMAP 7 yr mission report:
'WMAP data place tight constraints on the hypothesized burst of growth in the first trillionth of a second of the universe, called “inflation”, when ripples in the very fabric of space may have been created. The 7-year data provide compelling evidence that the large-scale fluctuations are slightly more intense than the small-scale ones, a subtle prediction of many inflation models.'
sbergman27 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sbergman27 "'WMAP data place tight constraints on the hypothesized burst of growth in the first trillionth of a second of the universe, called “inflation”
Inflation is an imaginary variable invented to fix a dogmatic theory that dose not work. Watch this 3 min video . watch?v=tHVLSMAJmPg
Discover magazine also disagrees with you. Google "Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory"
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker Then please explain how the consensus cosmology was able to make such accurate predictions regarding the distribution of angular size of the CMB anisotropies? We have actually witnessed, live, the exact fingerprint of the acoustic oscillations predicted by BB. In light of current data, Chown's "arguments" are pretty anemic. Brian Greene has an excellent new book out regarding several Multiverse concepts. A Multiverse is not at all in conflict with BB. Did you think it was?
sbergman27 5 months ago
@sbergman27 "Then please explain how the consensus cosmology was able to make such accurate predictions regarding the distribution of angular size of the CMB anisotropies?"
Cosmology is beyond my area of study right now. All I can do it listen to why so many physicists disagree with the BBl. I do know Einstein originally believed in a static universe and it was redshift I believe that made him change his mind. Some physicist now say they have proof redshift does not necessarily equate distance
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker What percentage of physicists do you think disagree with the the λCDM model? Certainly, the the data we have supports it. Would it be nicer if it were simpler? Yes, I suppose. But a model should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. What do you have to say about the preponderance of data which supports the Hubble Law? And then we have this lone, outlying point. If there was a pile of data on one side, and a smaller pile on the other? But there's not.
sbergman27 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sbergman27 ". A Multiverse is not at all in conflict with BB. Did you think it was?"
The multiverse is an unfalsifiable hypothesis that is needed to explain away the teleological argument. If the universe did not have the precise order it did, there would be no need for the multiverse hypothesis
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker Not teleological. More a conflict with the Copernican Principle. There are about 9 different species of possible Multiverse that I am aware of, which are logical consequences of theories which explain the known data very well. Most of those are unfalsifiable in the near term, yes. But not all. You might (or might not) enjoy this: watch?v=fJqpNudIss4
sbergman27 5 months ago
@sbergman27 "What percentage of physicists do you think disagree with the the λCDM model? Certainly, the the data we have supports it."
I believe in a BB of sorts, I do not believe our universe is eternal. However I disagree it was an explosion caused by heat that coincidentally "just happened" to hit all the right constants. as a theist I believe God created them. The theists hypothesis does not need to invent multiple unfalsifiable inflation events to explain the uniform temperature.
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker "I believe God created them"
It's amazing how you folks can make up something more complex than the Universe itself, this magical "god" of yours, say "He did it.", and step back thinking that you've explained something.
The apparent fine tuning of constants is a valid issue. But introducing a magical being (for which you have no evidence) only makes the problem far worse. There are far better ways to deal with the issue.
sbergman27 5 months ago
@sbergman27 "The apparent fine tuning of constants is a valid issue. But introducing a magical being (for which you have no evidence) only makes the problem far worse"
For what reason do you assume "magic" is needed to create a universe?. Intelligent foresight is all that is needed to create systems with fixed parameters. Atheists ASSUME no cause or reason for this event, theists ASSUME a pre-existing intelligence was the cause. Theists have logical inferences, atheists have no inferences.
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker You really have no conception of what a non-explanation your magical super-being is, do you? So... how did your invisible friend come into existence? By what mechanism. Please be specific. Far from explaining anything, you now have a much thornier issue to explain. However, my patience for dealing with the bizarre psychologies of people who have been brainwashed from birth to accept such an outré belief system as yours, is not unlimited. Ultimately, it's a waste of time.
sbergman27 5 months ago
@sbergman27 "how did your invisible friend come into existence?
There is a reason why atheistic science must adhere to ridiculous "something from nothing" stance. Because once the "eternal" is allowed to exist, God becomes inevitable. If eternal usable energy (in some form) exists, the chances of a life/awareness arising (abiogenesis of God) is 1/1 because it has "forever" in which to do so. Any life form that exists without entropy, must become all knowing thus all powerful.
God must exist
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker You are essentially talking about "Boltzmann Brains". Statistically, it's far more likely that your brain formed spontaneously from a random fluctuation than for the world, people, your imaginary "god", or even the rest of your body to have done so. So even using your flawed Boltzmann Brain approach, it's *far* more likely that your "god" does not exist, and that you are simply a disembodied brain having the thoughts that you are right now. BTW, I don't believe in Boltzmann Brains.
sbergman27 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sbergman27 "You are essentially talking about "Boltzmann Brains"...BTW, I don't believe in Boltzmann Brains"
"Boltzmann Brains" has "Boltzmann brain paradox" which is entropy, which is also the main paradox of biological evolution. My "abiogenesis of God hypothesis" takes place before the universe & entropy exists therefore is not subject to this paradox
Atheism is illogical from every angle its analyzed. By what reasoning do you use to put limitations on a life forms attributes?
toobsucker 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@toobsucker (cont'd) Addendum: You will find a more comprehensive explanation of the Boltzmann Brain concept, and its problems, here:
tinyurl . com / 3tbzmdr
Remove the spaces.
-Steve
sbergman27 5 months ago
Comment removed
toobsucker 5 months ago
@sbergman27 "It's amazing how you folks can make up something more complex than the Universe itself, this magical "god" of yours..,and step back thinking that you've explained something"
What is amazing is "rational minds" that can believe the myriad of coincidences that make life possible can just *POP* into existence without a reason or cause. You fail to consider the fact all intelligently designed systems absolutely require fixed parameters to function. Both the universe & biology have them
toobsucker 5 months ago
@sbergman27 "Inflation is not quite so nailed down as the rest of the Cosmology. There are competing hypotheses which use different constants. What the data says is that some version is probably the right one"
Is not this what physicists call the "fudge factor", where one must imagine without evidence, that a variable exists just to keep the theory from failing. This "inflation" appears to be a necessary invention to keep the theory from falsification just as P.E. did with gradualism
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker How's life back in 1991? That is where you're posting from, isn't it? In a year or 2 (for you) the COBE data will be coming in. And then WMAP. And predictions made by the Inflation model will be verified. We, the people of 2011, have already seen all that, and are waiting to see if Planck verifies the predicted 'swirl pattern' in the CMB polarization.
sbergman27 5 months ago
@sbergman27 "You might (or might not) enjoy this: watch?v=fJqpNudIss4"
I do believe in "multiverses", however I believe (as all theists do) these are actually other dimensions not other universes, and these other dimensions are filled with sentient life.
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker You speak for all theists, do you? My my. Until you define "dimension" and "Universe" your statement has little meaning. However, I do not "believe in" the Multiverse. I see the various Multiverse proposals as predictions of successful theories which are (mostly) untestable for now. Once (if ever) the predictions are tested, there will be no need to "believe" or not, as we'll have actual evidence yea or nay.
sbergman27 5 months ago
@sbergman27 It's amazing how you folks can make up something more complex than the Universe itself, this magical "god" of yours..,and step back thinking that you've explained something"
What is amazing is "rational minds" that can believe the myriad of coincidences that make life possible can just *POP* into existence without a reason or cause. You fail to consider the fact all intelligently designed systems absolutely require fixed parameters to function. Both the universe & biology have them
toobsucker 5 months ago
@sbergman27 "Until you define "dimension" and "Universe" your statement has little meaning"
I should not have to explain what should simply understood. Its is another unseen reality.
"However, I do not "believe in" the Multiverse"
If you don't "believe" in a multiverse then you must believe in only one universe. And you must believe a one time BB was phenomenally lucky to create all the variables for life to exist. Atheists physicist Weinberg finds it easier to "believe" in many universes
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker Your grasp of logic is pretty tenuous, isn't it? I take no position on the matter in the absence of experimental data. Certainly, several types of Multiverse are suggested by current theories which have survived experimental testing. But I don't just decide to believe in something because I want to believe it. I wait for the data. A multiverse is one way to explain the values of our constants. It is also possible that the values had to be what they are, for more fundamental reasons.
sbergman27 5 months ago
@sbergman27 "You really have no conception of what a non-explanation your magical super-being is, do you? So... how did your invisible friend come into existence? By what mechanism. Please be specific"
Quit funny. You say I have no concept of what a non-explanation is and the only explanation the atheist has is the causeless universe without a mechanism. How is it theists must explain the cause and mechanisms (which is simply an intelligence) but atheists need no cause or mechanism?
toobsucker 5 months ago
@sbergman27 "Your grasp of logic is pretty tenuous, isn't it?"
My grasp of logic in tenuous?. It is you that believes systems that requires fixed parameters to function can evolve. It is only deeply flawed liberal logic that can believe a system that is dependent on100% system evolution, can produce elements that can not evolve. Biological systems have many elements (UCE) that can not be changed. If evolution is valid the entire system must be subject to change. Yet the UCE can not evolve
toobsucker 5 months ago
@sbergman27 "Not teleological. More a conflict with the Copernican Principle"
Google "God or a Multiverse Does modern cosmology force us to choose between a creator and a system of parallel universes?" Mark Vernon
Atheistic physicist Steven Weinberg said "If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning ... I think you'd really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse."
The multiverse is only needed to explain the reason why God/I.D. is not necessary
toobsucker 5 months ago
@toobsucker (Cont'd) Addendum: I had already commented in the Chown thread, as you may have noticed. More data is on the way. By all accounts the Planck data is of remarkable quality. The instrument is performing at or beyond expectations. One big thing we can expect from Planck is high quality data on the polarization of the CMB. BB/Inflation predicts a specific "swirl" pattern to the polarization. Out of curiosity.. what cosmology are you selling? You apparently believe in some "alternative".
sbergman27 5 months ago
@toobsucker (cont'd) So Inflation, which predicts a very smooth CMB, is on solid ground. Furthermore, BB makes some very specific and unlikely predictions regarding the power function of the angular sizes of the small fluctuations which exist. & WMAP observations match so perfectly that you can hardly even see any divergence.. or even the tiny error bars on the graph. That 2.7K, and the fluctuations therein, are some of the most compelling evidence supporting the BB model that one could imagine.
sbergman27 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Big Bang is another way to import religion into the science from backdoor. Big Bang my foot
goodmemories215 6 months ago
Yes it`s between the Super Clusters of Galaxies that the Universe is only Exspanding becos thier are huge voids @ Dark Energy ( anti gravity ) Rules but within the Super Clusters Dark Matter @ Gravity Rules,but i do propose an idea that the Universe did not Exspand from a point the size of an atom but the size of a Galaxy i.e. like throwing a bucket of pop corn into space that is exspanding @ also each pop corn is exspanding. Gavin Kimpton New Zealand Part Time Cosmologist - please reply back.
25royroy 6 months ago
What an earth are you guys trying to say - the facts are simple,the Universe is not Static i. e. non moving becouse it is full of Dynamic Energy,if it was static dynamic gravity would couse the Universe to emplode in on itself - The Big Crunch so be very happy it`s Exspanding - u have a ran away idea.Anyone please reply to my simple but powerfull logic.
25royroy 6 months ago
@25royroy It's unclear that the Big Freeze that we currently see in our future is much better than a big crunch. Both result in an eventual increase in entropy to maximum. That said, the cosmological constant does appear to be winning over attractive gravity. There is at least 1 viable cyclical cosmology, the Ekpyrotic, (N. Turok, et. al.) which gets around the entropy problem. Haven't heard much since 2008. Planck mission is supposed to shed light. 7 yr WMAP data may already have. Not sure.
sbergman27 6 months ago
The creator of this "film" is a fucking dolt. plain and simple. You cant look mathematical fact in the face and call bullshit without looking like an idiot. Congratulations... IDIOT.
ijociou 6 months ago
theory #1 ANOTHER DIMENSION!! (eh...)
theory #2 everything was created from nothingness (so where do we come in)
theory #3 There IS a god (for all the athetists out there)
theory #4 I must be high, because we've got company! (aliens)
theory #5 Who are you? I am you, and he is me. (everything is the same, if one exists, one more must also exist, sometime later.)
OmegaXDark 6 months ago
What is most puzzling aspect of this case is that the two galaxies and the filaments are on the same order of magnitude of Redshift, whereas the stars on the edge of each galaxies, are at different order of magnitude, lik a pattern from Left to Right: Up D Up D Up :: W
CammieSpectrum 6 months ago
Look that means nothing. It only means there is an explanation waiting to come. The evidence for a cosmic burst is just too overwhelming. What it really was? And how it really fanned out? Is so vastly complicated that we aren't half way there to fully explaining every facet of the expansion. Brian Greene had it right when he showed the dog in front of a blackboard of equations. So do we "not" fully understand the universe in the same way. But...we evolve. Is evolution energy's desire? Humm?
EddieGoregor 7 months ago
Anyone how claims science covers up conflicting evidence and theories is a moron who knows nothing about science. Science is the pursuit of proving yourself wrong first and foremost.
Rhys17 7 months ago
@Rhys17 That is how Science should be. But the Scientific Comity considers most facts to be mysterious and surprising. Meanwhile they constantly make up speculation and mathematical equations that defy the most basic laws of physics and mathematical fundamentals. (Everything exploding from nothing.) That's Creation Myth not Science.
wavepsychic 7 months ago
@wavepsychic You have a HUGE misunderstanding on the big bang lmao. First of all it was not an explosion at all. It was an expansion. That right there already disproves your whole statement and shows your lack of intelligence on the subject.
MW2Addiction 7 months ago
@MW2Addiction Wrong. I know the entire belief of the big bang I heard it all before. Every version of it. And it was Originally an explosion from the god particle until they changed they hypothesis because the matter and energy in the Universe is lumpy.
Anyway belief what so ever you want I'm not going to get into a religious argument with faithers like you. I don't care what you don't know.
wavepsychic 7 months ago
@wavepsychic Well you obviously don't know anything about the big bang and your just speaking out of pure ignorance. Because it is NOT an explosion its a rapid expansion. Thats why the universe as of now is expanding. And we have proof that it is. The red shift in galaxies clearly tell us that galaxies are moving away from us therefore they are expanding.
MW2Addiction 7 months ago
@wavepsychic They start with speculation then they see if the mathematics of the new theory coincide with the mathematics of established ones. Scientists don't constantly make up mathematical equations that defy the laws of physics. The big bang doesn't state that everything came from nothing, that's impossible. Stephen Hawking has been consistently criticized for his black hole theory because it's states that everything inside simply disappears. The big bang theory says that all matter
Rhys17 7 months ago
@Rhys17 existed in one spot and in a very different state. What happened before the big band or what set it of? any scientist will give you a big resounding "I don't know". There's nothing wrong with the knowledge scientists have. It's the knowledge everyday people have of scientists that's wrong.
Rhys17 7 months ago
@Rhys17 Look I really do not wish to continue this parade of arguments with you people. I have heard one to many stupid big bang theories. Just the fact that there are so many should lead you to the conclusion that none of them are correct or Science. If you want to believe it then fine but I do not have any reason to believe in this so I am going to continue to believe the theory that I think makes the most sense. Have a good day.
wavepsychic 7 months ago
@wavepsychic How many big bang theories are there ? Ive only heard one big bang theory that keeps getting refined when more evidence becomes available, last time i checked thats how science works. Id love to hear the theory that makes more sense than the big bang theory
shmonksta 7 months ago
I have seen just one argument for why the Big Bang Theory is wrong and thousands of others which says it is right. Now for the one argument you provide us in this video - and I guess there are many more - the problem is that our observation and calculation of the redshift is wrong. Our observations of the universe are distorted and the lightspeed depends on whatever is in the way. It is not all vacuum up there. What we need is better calculations.
drdalet 7 months ago
people who look at this should type "the earth is growing" & have a look at the videos. opens up many questions about existing theories.
nayanmalig 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The fraud is applying the Doppler effect to light which can not be be stretched or condensed, it can only fade. To think we can see galaxies 80,000 light years away or 480 quadrillion miles away with zero distortion is simply foolishness. The popularity of the big bang is based on the universe being create by a poof for no reason at all... meaning there has to be a God, after all science proves it.
TRP360 8 months ago
Comment removed
TRP360 8 months ago
Big Bang is just a theory. Not yet proven. A lot of scientists are still arguing about this Big Bang.
jaop00092 8 months ago
@jaop00092 "is just a theory" - please understand that in science the use of the word theory is not the same as that of layman's use. Theory in science means that it is a model that explains the facts - it is a higher level than fact
asgardian001 8 months ago
@asgardian001 A theory is an idea based on observation not a fact and definitely not more than a fact.
TRP360 8 months ago
@TRP360 It is not an idea it is an explanation of the observable phenomena. It is higher than a fact in that it not only explains the facts but is used to predict future natural phenomena correctly. In that way it is definitely more than a fact, eg, Theory of Gravity - fact is that objects fall to the ground - the theory of gravity goes beyond this and explains why the fact happens and predicts how gravity will affect other objects.
asgardian001 8 months ago
@asgardian001 It is only one of many very different ideas used to attempt to explain our observations. the big bang has not correctly predicted anything in itself, predictions of known physics have been applied to the big bang as if it did occur, this is only a comparison based on IF it occurred.
TRP360 8 months ago
@TRP360 I should have further explained my previous posts - Theories can definitely be wrong - eg, Lamarckian Theory of Inheritance vs Theory of Evolution and thus get demoted to discredited Theories. This may happen with the Big Bang Theory in time. I was of the belief that the Big Bang Theory correctly explains the Red Shift that is observed but also predicts that it will continue (dependant upon the mass of the universe and Dark Matter actually existing)???
asgardian001 8 months ago
@asgardian001 Dark matter, (or elements in space too far from a light source to be illuminated hence not seen by humans) may very well be the cause of the distortion we see without realizing there is a distortion. The mass of the known universe will increase when we see further into space, which will be within the next couple of years. I don't remember exactly when the newest telescope will be operational but I recall it is not too far in the distance future, it will be interesting though.
TRP360 8 months ago
@jaop00092 Yea that's a load of ignorance in 1 statement. Theory, in science, is backed up by amazing facts and evidence to support it. So saying that its just a theory makes you an idiot. Because it clearly shows you don't know what the word theory means.
The theory of general relativity is about gravity. You don't question if gravity exists now do you? You know for sure that gravity exists.
MW2Addiction 7 months ago
Isn`t the big bang supposed to explain why we aren`t continually bathed in light from surrounding stars?
AClarke2007 9 months ago
None of this disproves the big bang theory. The space between two individual galaxies is not nearly the space that scientists refer as to be expanding. The explanation goes around a simple idea. Inside a cluster of galaxies, gravity rules and galaxies run against each other – all the time. The space that scientists refer to as be expanding is the space between clusters, not individual galaxies.
fiesta181 9 months ago 31
@fiesta181 You're just making up stuff. That's not Science. This dose ruin Hubble's Law. And there is still no proof for the Big Bang.
wavepsychic 7 months ago
@wavepsychic Yea cause you know just ignore the fact that the universe is expanding and that all the galaxies have a red shift which means they are expanding away from us. If you go back they should all come back to 1 singularity all together. Coincidence? I think not. Just ignore the fact that there is cosmic background microwave radiation that gives evidence in favor the of the big bang. And this is just 2 pieces of evidence that I have listed. There is tons more if you would do your research.
MW2Addiction 7 months ago
@wavepsychic We have plenty of evidence that the Big Bang happened. It's not a theory someone just pulled out of their hat, in fact scientists absolutely did not want to accept it at first, they had to be reluctantly dragged to it kicking and screaming--but they eventually arrived there because all the evidence from astronomy, astrophysics, nuclear physics, quantum physics, relativity, Newtonian mechanics, the red shift of galaxies, the cosmic...
MW2Addiction 7 months ago
@wavepsychic ...microwave background radiation (which is an actual picture of the fireball left over from the Big Bang that we can now SEE), deep space observations of the earliest galaxies, and lots of other data all converge stubbornly on the same conclusion: that the universe at one time had to be compressed into an incredibly small, hot, dense singularity, which erupted to form energy, matter, space, time, and the physical forces and laws as we know them (none of which existed in that...
MW2Addiction 7 months ago
@MW2Addiction And this Big Bang proves where matter and energy comes from? Where did this hot, dense singularity come from?
wavepsychic 7 months ago
@wavepsychic Energy and Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore, it has always existed. Now honestly nobody knows where the singularity came from. Some people believe it didn't come from anything that it was always there. Some people believe the universe is an un ending process of creating universe after universe and it kept going until it finally fit the criteria for life to begin. Its kind of like playing the lottery, you keep playing and playing until finally you win.
MW2Addiction 7 months ago
@wavepsychic You also gotta think that before this singularity there was nothing. Before it there was nothing cause time its self didn't exist. When it rapidly expanded time its self began. Now you may ask, what caused it to expand. Some scientist believe it was 2 membranes that collided which caused the expansion. It would make sense because if this were to happen there would be massive amounts of energy, matter, etc. all being released at once.
MW2Addiction 7 months ago
@wavepsychic I suggest you look up the membrane theory. It will definitely help you understand more on what I meant by 2 brains colliding.
MW2Addiction 7 months ago
@MW2Addiction Stop making up stuff. None of this is Empirical data.
wavepsychic 7 months ago
@wavepsychic I never said it was empirical data. I clearly stated that no one knows the answer to your question. However, there are many different theories and suggestions that could be possibilities. However, they are not confirmed due to the lack of evidence.
MW2Addiction 7 months ago
@MW2Addiction Science - systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
Honestly dude the big bang isn't Science. None of the theories explain where everything comes from. Be it nothingness exploded, pure energy expanded or god particle exploded/expanded nor string theory. Because where would the strings/pure energy come from? It just doesn't explain. So what's with the non-empirical blind faith bud?
wavepsychic 7 months ago
@wavepsychic All evidence that we have found like the cosmic background microwave radiation, red shift, etc. points toward the big bang. Stop trying to make it seem like its not science when there is pure evidence and facts of science that points toward it being true.
MW2Addiction 7 months ago
@MW2Addiction The Microwave radiation supports the Electric Universe model as well not just the big bang. In fact the predictions made by the Big Bangers was that the Universe would be hotter closer to the big bang and have an average temperature of 50 degrees K. In fact the Universe if uniformly 3 degrees. The Red shifts does not mean that we are at the center of the Universe with the most red shifted galaxies being the most distant!
wavepsychic 7 months ago
@wavepsychic Nobody ever claimed that we are at the center of the universe. Thats absurd, and anybody who claims such a thing is completely illogical. The reason why galaxies have a red shift is because the universe is expanding therefore making the galaxies move further apart from each other. Kind of like when you inflate a balloon.
MW2Addiction 7 months ago
@MW2Addiction They did claim that! Hubble's Law claims that because the most distant galaxies are the most red shifted then we are right now at the center of the Universe where the Big Bang happened. And the Universe ends 13 trillion light years in all directions that Hubble Space Telescope sees.
I am glad that you agree that the most distant objects are red shifted because space is expanding away from us is illogical. Now just apply logic to the rest of the big expansion.
wavepsychic 7 months ago
@wavepsychic The red shift shows us our horizon. If we were to measure the red shift from any other galaxy, we would see the same thing that we do here on earth. We are not the center of the galaxy but we are the center of our horizon.
85zeitgeist 7 months ago
@85zeitgeist Wrong Zeitgeist. Why then do the Astrophysicists say that the Universe is 13 trillion years old? Because it would take light 13 trillion years to reach this horizon? If space is expanding from a POINT and we know this because we are looking from this point and all galaxies are moving away that implies that our galaxy is not moving in any direction. And if space was expanding why would Galactic clusters not be moving apart? only space between GC's is expanding. That makes no sense!
wavepsychic 7 months ago
@wavepsychic First off, 13 trillion years is incorrect. The age of the universe is estimated quite accurately to be around 13.72 billion years old. Second, the redshift varies between different galaxies depending on many factors. And we're also moving. Thirdly, gravity on a galactic scale is what holds clusters together for the time being. Eventually that will change. Anything else, young grasshopper?
85zeitgeist 7 months ago
Comment removed
MW2Addiction 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wavepsychic ...small, hot, dense state, since the mathematics that describe such things say that physical laws all break down there or become unified in that dimensionless, massless, timeless singularity, so any statements about causality or conservation of whatever are essentially meaningless at that point).
MW2Addiction 7 months ago
@wavepsychic well at least now Y'know...
fiesta181 7 months ago
@fiesta181 You are a complete moron! This has to do with redshift which is what the big bang theory is based on! The standard model uses redshift to determine distance and velocity of an object so if you have several objects connected to one another with vastly different redshifts it absolutely does invalidate the big bang at-least the foundation it is based on! Also gravity is the weakest force known so it can not rule anything besides gravity is an electrical phenomenon nincompoop!
yahshuah29 6 months ago
@yahshuah29 It's not individual galaxies. It's actually clusters of galaxies that are traveling apart. A cluster of galaxies is an amount of several galaxies held together by the force of gravity. Also, the Standard Model is a theory of quantum physics; this is astronomy.
fiesta181 6 months ago
@fiesta181 The standard model is a theory of physics man you need to do some actual reading! Gravity is a theory in physics again do some reading! This is not astronomy its cosmology and physics is a component of COSMOLOGY please man do some reading ok im not going to call you dumb or ignorant because that is obvious by your comments I just ask that you know what you are talking about. People take this stuff very seriously & you might get hurt with the 5th grade rebuttals is all im sayin bro!
yahshuah29 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@yahshuah29*The standard model is a theory of physics*
Lol. I see what you say. I was just picking with you because you used the expression 'Standard Model' (which is a theory, obviously) to refer to the TECHNIQUE - that scientists use to measure speed and distance, known as red shift of light waves.
*People take this stuff very seriously*
Oh, you have no idea...
:)
fiesta181 6 months ago
@yahshuah29 fiesta181 is correct. This is merely an interesting possible anomaly. Certainly no invalidation of the Consensus Cosmology. Observed Z is a composite of cosmological Z and regular Doppler shift. The velocity variations are relatively high. But only about 2% of c, well within possibility. Also, it's not completely established that the objects *are* part of the same filament. It's more complicated than that. Difficulties in measurement, etc. There *may* be something important here.
sbergman27 6 months ago
@sbergman27 Read the rest of the posts & then tell me if you want to latch on to this guy? With that said I find you to be more intellectually honest & would be inclined to at least take you seriously!
yahshuah29 6 months ago
@yahshuah29 I glanced over the thread & he's right about G ruling in local clusters, but expansion winning over longer distances. In general, EM is only significant on very small scales since + & - balance nearly perfectly. Look. Z has been measured for countless objects. NGC7603 is a single possible anomaly, with lots of uncertainties & possible explanations. Hubble's Law is in no danger from it. Though it's been a favorite cherry-pick of pseudoscience groups like the Cult of Plasma Cosmology.
sbergman27 6 months ago 2
Cherry-picking? That is exactly how many are backing the big bang theory.
Fridaey13txhOktober 5 months ago
@Fridaey13txhOktober "That is exactly how many are backing..."
Nope. The CMB conclusively demonstrates that the BB model is correct at least back to the end of Inflation. & very strongly suggests that 1 of the Inflation models is correct. Please review the WMAP 7 year report. & remember that it is an actual microwave photograph of our U at 0.0027% its present age. Add to that the wealth of collateral data, e.g. GR being tested every day, & the BB model is revealed to be on *very* solid ground.
sbergman27 5 months ago
Not in just this case.
youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0
Fridaey13txhOktober 5 months ago
I guess I don't get it.
How would they connect unless they were both expanding?
WHEW!!!!!!!!!!
Love this stuff, but way over my head.
DannyBruiz 9 months ago
Very good video! Makes you think that there could be a steady state theory of the Universe.
nickharvey7 10 months ago
Good one! Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata! this is a good discussion as long as we abide to the cardinal rule of science i.e. "Always consider alternative explanations, never accept anything at face value". In the meantime it is still the Big Bang theory for me, CMB and Hubble's complimented it.. ah, redshift is anomalous? so they use parallax in calculating the distance? Pythagorean is a theory too! will never be a law! that is what science is. :-)
mauialabad 10 months ago
@mauialabad
Whoa my bad! I found out that even the parallax function of the state of the art GAIA satellite is limited to 32000 light-years only and you are talking about millions light-years! you didn't mention that the uncertainty of the redshift increases with distance and that the legitimate cosmologists use a ladder or set of methods in determining distances to astronomical objects.
mauialabad 10 months ago
Comment removed
BlueCosmology 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mauialabad Pythagoras' theorem is a theorem, kind of in the name there.
A theorem and a theory are opposites. A theorem can be 100% proven.
BlueCosmology 6 months ago
If the big bang is wrong, then explain to me how they determine the universe's age. last time i checked, they measure the universe's age by using the observations of the wavelengths of stars's light and even the CMBR and by using extrapolation. The CMBR is an echo of an event that occurred a long time ago. This event is the quantum fluctuations that birthed our universe and thus the big bang. The Big Bang is not a model of the birth; it's a model of the evolution of our universe.
FallofDarkness55 11 months ago
@FallofDarkness55 Here's my problem though - The big bang is talked about like it is a irrefutable fact. Stations like the history channel and many videos here on youtube just state it like it is as real as the screen your looking at. My point is, the big bang it is not always talked about and presented as our universe's evolution (as you suggest) but rather it's birth.
Lisztman88 11 months ago
@Lisztman88 In order to understand the birth of our universe, one needs to study theoretical physics. The Big Bang is a popular conventional idea in modern physics and cosmology, and because of this the big bang can not be used to explain what really happened at time zero. The laws of physics collapses at this point. The math is an utter disaster; luckily theoretical physics concepts like string theory and m-theory offers an explanation for the birth of our universe.
FallofDarkness55 11 months ago
Why is this theory defended so adamantly and strongly when there are clearly problems with it?
Lisztman88 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Google THE "BIG BANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE for my thoughts on the subject (YouTube will not allow a link to be posted).
WRHappened 1 year ago
Gogle THE "BIG BANG" IS JUST RELIGION DISGUISED AS SCIENCE for my thoughts on the subject (YouTube will not allow a link to be posted).
WRHappened 1 year ago
Being that a Catholic Priest was party to creating the Big Bang Theory, I am very skeptical.
y2knoproblem 1 year ago
true or not i still believe big bang over a big dude with a beard, but that might just be me.
aeon4591 1 year ago
This must be true because it's not only on youtube, it even got an earie piano score. Seriously... I'm not a scientist. What exactly is this supposed to prove?
Krappman 1 year ago
Is it possible that the light from one galaxy could be lensed significantly more than the other by a dense accumulation of dark matter, which would distort the redshift of the two galaxies relative to one another? or is the percieved differences in distance too great?
hattonhaha 1 year ago
@hattonhaha Do you know what "sun dogs" are? Fata Morgana? Do you know how optic fibres work? Do you know that radio signals can be "tunneled" in layers of gas?
This can happen in small scale, it can happen in grand scale.
Kenzofeis 1 year ago
No am not a scientist,or a scientific pro so dnt be an arse, I was just saying unless u can test an idea u cant really prove it,it would be theory wouldnt it?
britishgoose01 1 year ago
isnt it all just theory though because unless you actually get a ship and travel them distance and actually see we will never trully know
britishgoose01 1 year ago
@britishgoose01 Don't say "just a theory". It shows you don't know what a scientific theory is. It's not like common vernacular. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena. And no we don't need a ship to go see it up close to know it's real. If the Big Bang is incorrect that would be interesting...show me. This video is week.
fonoflux1 1 year ago
@britishgoose01 but we can take observations of nearby objects and effects, annalyse the underlying patters and extrapolate the results to determine the nature of objects at much greater distances in such a way that although we can't observe it directly, we can say 100% that it is the case.
hattonhaha 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@britishgoose01 but we can take observations of nearby objects and effects, analyse the underlying patters and extrapolate the results to determine the nature of objects at much greater distances in such a way that although we can't observe it directly, we can say 100% that it is the case.
hattonhaha 1 year ago
Without even considering whether plasma cosmologist are correct or not, what they are doing seems more in