ForumsWEPRThe Big Bang?

44 4342
xxalphaninjaxx
offline
xxalphaninjaxx
18 posts
1,285

I have been think about how people keep saying that the big bang is a fact and that if one believes in creationism they are considered "dumb" (from a lot of my college professors), but i never found a way were a big bang could ever work. and here are my reasons why:

1. the starting point for this big bang has to be a star because a solid rock or gas planet couldn't make the stars we see today.

2. Since it is a star that means the core of this star was able to contain everything we see today and the other universes we have yet to discover.

3. when a star goes supernova it is because the core has been changed into iron and the iron takes all the energy away from the star and is blows up. So that would mean everything past iron in the periodic table couldn't exist. Right?

4. when the star goes supernova all the energy is transferred to the core so using E=MC^2. and since there was nothing but this "star" there would be no C and would be E=M. a star that size and mass should have been able to create a black hole that would suck up every little particle that could have been shot out in the explosion.

5. if they had made it past that point why are all the different galaxies a disk? if there was an explosion we should have more of a sphere shape.

  • 44 Replies
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

As for the rate it's expanding, that is actually increasing thanks to Dark Energy.

they got proof for dark energy now? that test few year ago was deemed false, right?

I include Pluto and always will)

Eris, our 10th planet
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dc/Eris_Orbit.svg/644px-Eris_Orbit.svg.png
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,372 posts
24,445

Meh, it's a dwarf planet.

partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

Meh, it's a dwarf planet.

if we count pluto, we have to count eris. it has 27% more mass then pluto and comes as close as neptune to our sun.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

scrap that last part. it does not.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,372 posts
24,445

Well, we don't count Pluto anymore, or those dwarves we know beyond Pluto.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

they got proof for dark energy now? that test few year ago was deemed false, right?


it's all indirect observation unfortunately. It's required for the observed models of the universe to exist. It's relation to redshift (our observing that the universe expansion is increasing) is probable our best observation for it's existence. Some argue that it's our only true piece of evidence. The formation of stars, galaxies and such would indicate there is a lot more stuff out there that we aren't directly detecting.
Getoffmydangle
offline
Getoffmydangle
152 posts
2,995

Wow, Magegraywolf, if you are not a teacher you may have missed your calling... keep up the good work!

handlerfan
offline
handlerfan
194 posts
40

I choose to present an alternative.
There was no Big Bang. There were simple life forms created in the primeval broth which grew more complex and developed brains that got more complex until from the primates emerged an animal that could look around this world and wonder how did all this come about. Then came the Big Bang Theory.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

I choose to present an alternative.
There was no Big Bang. There were simple life forms created in the primeval broth which grew more complex and developed brains that got more complex until from the primates emerged an animal that could look around this world and wonder how did all this come about. Then came the Big Bang Theory.


How is this an alternative to anything? If you want an alternative to the Big Bang you need to come up with something that fits the evidence that we observe for the Big Bang. There are alternatives to the Big Bang model, however the Big Bang model currently fits the observed evidence the best. That's why it's the most accepted model. Science isn't just pulling things out our *****.
handlerfan
offline
handlerfan
194 posts
40

How is this an alternative to anything? . My alternative is that we know nothing about how things came to be, but we have the human mind realising where it is, assessing where it is, and coming to conclusions.

What about people like Penny who don't have the smarts to understand the Big Bang theory, Sheldon?

Science isn't just pulling things out of thin air. I suspect that a lot of things are pulled out of thin air to get a research grant.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,731 posts
20,765

How is this an alternative to anything? . My alternative is that we know nothing about how things came to be, but we have the human mind realising where it is, assessing where it is, and coming to conclusions.

Again it's not an alternative, it's a "we don't know"-statement. You just say we may not be right about the big bang, but don't propose some other model else instead.

Science isn't just pulling things out of thin air. I suspect that a lot of things are pulled out of thin air to get a research grant.

Of course you need to make good impression to get money for your research, and researchers are hardly to blame for this. Doesn't mean that all that comes out is hot air; peer-review sorts this out usually.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,540 posts
2,210

Science isn't just pulling things out of thin air. I suspect that a lot of things are pulled out of thin air to get a research grant.


Yes there are people who try to falsify their claims but the scientific process does eventually weed this out. One step in this is as HahiHa pointed out the peer review process. Though beyond this we also have other scientists who will go and try to duplicate that person's results. Also as science progresses we will find and discard the parts that are shown to not fit.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,169 posts
4,380

1 thing about peer reviews. it can sometimes take about 20 year befor the research is redone or even readed over by a other scientist. often when someone has a good name. people do not check their statements and letters.
last year 3 dutch people whit a phd. who had a very good name for over 15 year. were stripped of their phd title because they made up stuff and teached this to their students as fact.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,731 posts
20,765

Submitting your paper to a journal in order to get it published automatically involves peer-review by several other scientists. At least nowadays, in most cases. But I think what you say is not completely wrong; having a fame bonus can get you much further.

They found not long ago a super massive black hole in a small galaxy that contradicts current models of black holes. If they have to adapt models of how galaxies form, maybe the big bang theory will have to be updated once more? Admittedly it would be boring if each new find would just agree with the models
Giant black hole in tiny galaxy confounds astronomers

Showing 31-44 of 44